Advocacy
-
National Peace Corps Association > News > Advocacy > Inspector General Blasts Five-Year Rule
Inspector General Blasts Five-Year Rule
By Jonathan Pearson on Wednesday, June 27th, 2012
The so-called “Five Year Rule” of employment at the Peace Corps has long been a subject of debate, discussion and review. The latest addition? A just released evaluation – begun in February 2011 – by the Peace Corps Office of Inspector General (OIG).
On page 7 of its report on the impacts of Peace Corps’ five-year employment rule (FYR), the OIG notes some of the positive comments from agency managers and employees “who asserted that the FYR has been an important feature of the agency’s personnel system.”
On page 8, the OIG also adds “Because of the diversity of viewpoints concerning the effects of the FYR, this report has based its findings, to the extent possible, on analyses of available personnel and other records, relying on respondent viewpoints for additional support.”
From there, the Inspector General’s findings slam the FYR over the next 30 pages of the report, citing an array of problems with the rule, some of which they say have direct negative impacts on programming and volunteer operations.
Report Findings
While original proposals in the mid 1960′s suggested that the Peace Corps employment limit should be eight or perhaps ten years, the Five Year Rule was amended into the Peace Corps Act in 1965. According to the OIG report, “In passing the FYR, Congress intended to ‘permit a constant inflow of new blood and ideas,’ to give the agency ‘administrative flexibility which is not possible under the restrictions of the civil service system,’ and to make sure that the agency’s staff ‘not be organized on a career basis.’ ”
However, the report states the FYR has “contributed to an abbreviated average tenure of (direct hire) employees throughout the agency, well short of five years.” For example, the average length of service for direct hire employees between 2000 and 2010 has been less than three years. In its findings, The OIG says high turnover rates and shortened length of employment have:
- harmed overseas posts
- affected staff development and training
- contributed to an insufficient institutional memory
- weakened Peace Corps’ ability to attract and retain qualified personnel to perform core management functions
- made succession planning more urgent and harder to accomplish
- eroded Peace Corps’ capacity for innovation
- contributed to inadequate performance management
The OIG estimates that the high turnover rate costs not only in performance, but also in terms of dollars. For the five year period of 2005 through 2009, the OIG estimates the Five Year Rule contributed between $12.6 million and $15.5 million in additional turnover management costs.
Citing a Peace Corps Fiscal Year 2010 Human Capital Management Report, the report also notes that less than 30% of Peace Corps staff are subjected to the Five Year Rule. Nearly 2 out of every 3 of the more than 3,000 staff employed by the Peace Corps in FY 10 was a personal service contractor, while another 7% were overseas foreign service nationals. Neither category is covered by the five-year rule. As for direct hire personnel, the report notes that exemptions to the five-year rule have been granted to more than 20 individuals involved with volunteer safety and security, as well as the Inspector General and staff.
As for high-level positions, the report found that during the 2000′s, 75% of the 95 direct hires in senior staff positions at Peace Corps were held by individuals who were not Returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs). ”While there are no clear criteria for judging if 25 percent of RPCVs in senior staff positions meets the original intent behind the in-up-out policy conceived in the 1960′s, the percentage is much lower than the percentage of RPCVs employed in overseas leadership positions during the ten-year timeframe we examined.”
Along with comments about the five-year rule, the report notes that staff expressed concerns during interviews about Peace Corps’ political appointment structure. “The commonly expressed reasoning respondents articulated was that these two features of the agency’s personnel structure – high turnover created by the FYR and the high number of political appointments managing the agency had combined to create a vicious cycle that harmed the strategic direction of the agency, as well as the ability of staff to function effectively in carrying out whatever strategy was in place at the time.”
OIG Recommendations
In its list of recommendations, the OIG calls upon the Director of the Peace Corps to “carry out the necessary reforms to the Five Year Rule, including seeking legislative remedies if required, to reduce the rate of employee turnover and increase the average length of employment of the agency’s direct hire employees.”
Other recommendations include identifying those functions that should be subject to periodic turnover to meet the needs of the agency; implement a process for acquiring and retaining qualified personnel to perform core business functions; improving the agency approach to performance management; and better gathering and analysis of data on the causes of unwanted, early employee resignations.
Agency Recommendations Expected in August
In its response, Peace Corps says it concurs with the findings of the Inspector General. In its response, Peace Corps notes two consultants with extensive experience in the programs and operations of foreign affairs agencies (including the Peace Corps) have been retained to review the Inspector General’s report and other past findings concerning the Five Year Rule.
The consultants are expected to issue a report with a list of suggested recommendations to Peace Corps Director Aaron Williams by this August.
Share Your Thoughts
Follow this link to read the report.
Share your thoughts below about the report findings and the Five-Year Rule.
Based on the data enumerated in the report and on results of interviews of Peace Corps staff, my initial opinions have been reinforced. Those are that the enforcement of a Five Year Rule is arbitrary, leads to a higher turnover rate due to personnel seeking more stable and long term positions, a fracturing of the continuity required for a sufficient administrative ‘memory’ and finally a built-in inefficiency as staff turnover requires ‘reinventing the wheel’ at least every 5 years.
The FYR should not be applied through the organization as a whole but only to those positions that would not negatively impact the continuity of the organization – especially with regards to support of field volunteers.
If the Peace Corps’ stellar record of achievement is so hampered by this five year rule, maybe service + three could hamper us even better toward even more up and out, unqualified successes.
The illogic of this unsupported report presents classic elitist groupthink and precisely the careerist bureaucratism that our shorter term elected authors had the wisdom and foresight(complete with their own even shorter term “administrative memory” and staff turnovers)to “craft out” of the Peace Corps in 1965. The FYR design, despite constant short circuiting, often by conceited, self-annointed indispensables, remains as good today as Sarge Shriver himself.
I can only wonder how many overseas programs and HQ internships will be deallocated and scuttled for Peace Corps to finance the review these long term contractors and exempted OIG trigger as yet another dose of institutional parasite repellant.
The hystrionic, pseudoscientific objections to the FYR only confirm its value in preventing the feudal fortress mentalities that still paralyze overbloated cousin agencies even at $500 to $1 funding advantages over Peace Corps’ returns on investment for the values and interests ordinary Americans cherish.
nd, latin america
80-83
The report and recommendations make sense to me. They reinforce some of the feelings I had while serving as a volunteer in Ukraine, 2009-11, and some observations of staff at Washington PC headquarters. Whatever enlivens and promotes PC continuity, institutional memory, and personnel strength and vision is worth the time and effort. These changes seem to be long overdue. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment.
This is interesting. Thanks for posting. Longer tenures could help make positive reform a greater possibility.
I worked at the Peace Corps headquarters for three years and loved it (I am also a returned Volunteer). I knew about the five year rule for myself but also knew that there was a huge number of people overseas and political appointees who did not have to follow this rule. I found this disconcerting. What happens in this situation is that headquarters employees become worried about job security. They don’t want to be stuck without a job in five years. So they start looking after about two years and most people find a new job in 2-4 years. Projects are dropped, institutional memory is lost, and there seems to be a going-away party every two weeks. I think the five year rule should be changed to 10 years and it should apply to EVERYONE that works for the PC. It is unfair that the rule applies to some but not all. I also think more people in leadership positions should be required to be a returned PC Volunteer. I’ve said my piece.
Perhaps I should not comment since I have not read the entire report. But I am reading Scott Stossel’s biography of Sargent Shriver at the moment – which gives the rationale for limiting service in the PC at its outset(i.e. the Peace Corps is not supposed to be a career; if you want that, look to the State Department). In addition, Goal 3 of the PC (which now seems to be gaining more prominence) is important – i.e. “bring the experience back to share and apply in all sectors of American society.” The founders seemed to worry that the Peace Corps may “just become another government bureaucracy.” I don’t see how that preoccupation has changed – but then, maybe the report/recommendations will convince me otherwise!
jf ’61-’63
The five year opportunity law is there so others may serve,not just RPCVs.
The people who actually do the work are limited to two years and cost over $50,000 a year each. Peace Corps also charges other executve programs/agecies (e.g. PEPFAR)per two year worker. As long as all that money is there and Peace Corps charges other US government programs people will want contracts, not just unlimited federal employment (e.g. PEPFAR).
We should lift the 2 year limit before we do anything else.