AFSANET from the

USAID Vice President

March 8 , 2007

Please send any questions or comments to AFSA/USAID Vice President Francisco Zamora at fzamora@usaid.gov.

This is a “special edition” of our AFSAnet message, focusing solely on explaining the Foreign Service Limited (FSL) program to our general membership. It’s a long message, but we ask that you read the whole thing. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have after reading it.  

Foreign Service Limited (FSL) Program in a Nutshell:  
AFSA continues to receive questions from Foreign Service Officers about the impact of the FSL program on the integrity of the career foreign service and in particular, their careers. At best, FSLs are considered a necessary source for filling positions other FSOs are unwilling or unable fill. At worst, FSLs are seen as unfair and unqualified competitors compared to those employees who joined the Agency through its standard intake process. While these concerns may or may not be legitimate, there is also a great deal of misinformation about what this FSL authority is and is not. In order to prevent further confusion and make sure we all have the same basic information, I will attempt to summarize below the main elements of the FSL mechanism and how it can affect FSOs.  

What is an FSL?  
A Foreign Service Limited employee is a person appointed to a non-career 5-year appointment to perform inherently federal governmental functions. An FSL appointment may not exceed 5 years and the Foreign Service Act also states that they may not be renewed. As federal officials, FSL employees can obligate the USG, as well as supervise and evaluate career employees. Some FSL appointments may permit a candidate who has been selected competitively for certain positions to apply for career candidacy status after two years of service. If the FSL appointment was a conversion in-place or a non-competitive one, the FSL is not eligible for consideration to a career candidate appointment. Employees holding an FS-1 rank who eventually convert to career status will convert at a comparable salary, where possible, at the FS-2 level. The great majority of FSL appointments are non-competitive. 

Benefits that accrue to an FSL employee are very similar to the benefits for the career USDH employee. The individual has diplomatic status in the country in which she/he resides and travels under a diplomatic passport. Time spent as a FSL counts for federal service whereas times as a USPSC does not. Life and health insurance are the same as for career USDH.

FSLs can supervise and write AEFs on other USDH employees but they have no immediate impact on the promotion process regarding career and/or career candidates. Even though AEFs are written on FSL employees, they are not reviewed by performance boards for promotion consideration. As for supervisory functions, the final decision on supervision is made by the appropriate leadership at each individual Operating Unit.

FSL employees do not participate in the open assignments process. FSLs cannot bid in the Foreign Service Assignment System. Offers for appointments were made to individuals who are expected to stay at their current mission for at least a tour of duty. The policy is to move FSLs only on very rare occasions in order to meet critical priority staffing needs, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, certain HIV/AIDS positions or in a backstop that has a critical shortage, e.g., controller officers.

Background:
Contrary to common perception, the FSL authority is not new. Section 309 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, 22 USC 3949 has always permitted USAID to hire FSL employees funded out of operating expenses (OE). This program has always been fairly modest, and allowed a small number of pre-qualified Civil Service employees to fill mission positions still vacant after the end of each assignment cycle.  

However, due to rapidly changing world events (i.e., Iraq War, AIDS pandemic), the number of FSO-type vacancies increased significantly as Critical Priority Countries (CPC) and HIV/AIDS PEPFAR programs were created. Given that Agency operating expense funds are meager when compared to program funds, and due to the unavailability of sufficient FSOs to fill these positions, the FSL mechanism provided an attractive solution. Therefore, the FY 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act expanded the authority of the Agency to fund FSLs, this time using program funds.  

Beginning in FY 2005 through 2007, USAID was granted legislative authority for the annual hiring of up to 175 persons per year - of which not more than 75 can be assigned in Washington – under the FSL program. The authority to hire expires on September 30, 2008. Furthermore, the legislation caps the amount of funds available for all program funded FSLs hired since FY 2004 at $75 million.  

Another significant development was the modification of the legislation to reduce USAID's reliance on overseas personal services contracts (PSCs) or other non direct-hire employment mechanisms financed with program and OE funds. The Act allows USAID to use up to $10,000,000 in program funds to pay overseas support costs for Foreign Service Officers ranked at FS-04 or below (i.e., NEPs and IDIs). These funds can be used to pay for indirect costs such as housing and transportation – costs routinely paid from Program funds for PSCs. This junior officer placement authority (JOPA) is expected to achieve annualized savings in administrative costs and increase assignment possibilities for junior officers. To date the Agency has placed approximately 40 JOPAs through this process.  

Apart from providing staff for CPC and PEPFAR country programs overseas, the overall goal of the legislated hiring authority also became to homogenize the workforce, save operating expenses, and reduce overhead costs. Many US Personal Service Contractor positions overseas were converted to FSL status (provided that NEPs and IDIs have received assignments). Positions in Washington were also converted to FSL given the dizzying number and variety of contracting mechanisms such as TAACS, PASAS, RSSAS, fellows, CASU, to name a few.  

As mentioned previously, the vast majority of these converted positions are non-career, 5-year limited appointments that CANNOT be converted into career appointments. The only exception to this is for appointment into positions in CPCs and for certain HIV/AIDS positions which have been competitively advertised. To date, out of the approximately 200 FSLs brought on board, less than 20 have been given the option of applying for career candidacy consideration. These employees are expected to work in CPC countries for two years, apply for career candidate status after that, and then begin a new 5-year period where they must meet all normal tenure requirements such as language, time overseas, and acceptable performance.

If the FSL appointment was a conversion in-place or a non-competitive one, the FSL is not eligible for consideration to a career candidate appointment. The appointment can be terminated before 5 years in the case of poor performance, if the appointee is unwilling or unable to continue at the post of appointment, or if the Mission or Bureau feels it needs to shift its program for budgetary reasons.

The new authority only permits the Agency to program fund FSL appointees who are hired in FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007. The authority permits the Agency to program fund these employees for the full term of their appointment.

The Controversy:
While it is understandable that the Agency seeks ways to deal with personnel shortages and to reduce proliferation of confusing contracting mechanisms, the expanded FSL authority also conflicts with the concept of maintaining a professional career Foreign Service. Many FSOs, especially newer employees such as NEPs and IDIs, are concerned that a parallel Foreign Service is being created which “short-circuits” the normal pathways to intake and long-term career development. FSLs are allowed entry into the Foreign Service at much higher grades and potentially create a separate concurrent assignment system. This may harm the chances for advancement and career development of regular FSOs. The following areas are cases in point:

Salary : One of the touchiest issues is salary levels. Many of the new FSLs came in at FS-01 levels whereas NEPs and IDIs were brought in at FS-05 and FS-04 levels, even though many of them have work experiences and salary histories equivalent to FSLs. A considerable number of NEPs and some IDIs took salary cuts in order to join the Agency. Those coming in as FSLs and who might be eventually tenured may come in at the FS-02 level at the highest step possible given their previous salary history. NEPs and IDIs were not allowed levels higher than FS-04. For this reason, these junior officers are understandably upset at the inequalities in pay and rank.

Authority : Because many of these FSLs are converted in place, no competition was required. This contrasts with NEPs and IDIs, who have had to compete with hundreds of other applicants. These new NEP and IDI employees are put through intensive training and orientation in Washington and at their posts, including training in supervision. However, many FSLs who come in at much higher levels may be given supervisory responsibilities over equally qualified NEPs and perhaps IDIs who have more of a long term commitment to the Agency versus the shorter 5-year perspective of the FSL. It is up to the head of each operating unit to determine who supervises whom. In the opinion of many, not all FSLs are knowledgeable enough to develop meaningful performance evaluations of career-minded NEPs and IDIs.

Competitive FSLs : While the number of competitively offered FSLs does not exceed 20 individuals as of this writing, it nevertheless bothers the sensibilities of the regular FSO. Individuals offered FSL positions in CPC countries have the option of becoming career candidates after serving two years in these critical postings. The Agency’s justification for this generous benefit is that this is the only way to attract individuals to such dangerous posts. AFSA has asked the Agency to offer career candidate status only as a last resort and to not take it for granted that this is the only way to attract applicants.

Bidding: FSLs who become career candidates after completing 2 years at a CPC or PEPFAR post are immediately eligible to participate in the Foreign Service Assignment Cycle and compete with other FSOs for advertised positions. It is perceived by some that these FSLs are being given preference for attractive onward assignments even though they have been with in the Agency for only a short time.

Promotions : What happens when the first person hired as an FSL becomes eligible for promotion? The guidance put out by HR suggests that management will safeguard the promotion flow-through of the regular Foreign Service corps when that time comes. AFSA’s interpretation of that language is that whenever a FSL is promoted, the line will drop down by one name in order to promote the next “regular” FSO. We will push for this practice strongly in our negotiations.

Conclusion:
There is no question that the FSL authority has affected the regular FSO career service by disturbing the assignment system, supervisory functions, remuneration scale, seniority system, the ability to compete fairly, and – above all – morale. The Agency defends its decision to continue with the expanded FSL authority by saying that regular FSOs are not available in the numbers which will be needed to staff CPC countries. Nevertheless, the Agency, itself, created this problem by consistently failing to keep up with the attrition rate. Recruitment and intake of new officers is lagging far behind. The latest junior officer class in February 2007 had barely 29 new persons when normal attrition is closer to 100 FSOs a year. Workforce planning and funding desperately needs to be improved. Prospect for the future look dim as the Operating Expenses FY08 Budget request is actually 15% below the FY06 level!

One only has to remember that USAID caused its current shortages with the RIF and low hiring levels of the 1990s. In 1992, there were 3,406 USDH (FS and CS) at USAID, as compared to just around 2,400 today (200 are FSLs). This is about 1,000 fewer people on board. No wonder we had to resort to PSC hiring and eventually the FSL program. The solution to the current problem must be to staff the Agency up to the levels which will be needed in the future.

The case is no longer being made that FSLs are saving funds as a result of the conversions. It has not been successful in homogenizing the workforce either - in fact, all the old hiring mechanisms remain and this just added one more. Will the authority be renewed? If it is then we run into the problem of having created a parallel Foreign Service System. What good is that?

AFSA continues to insist that FSL appointments be kept to a minimum whenever possible. More importantly, offers of career candidacy must only be made as a last resort when regular career FSOs are unable to meet staffing demands. Not everyone is available to work in CPC countries due to medical issues and/or family situations but it must be remembered that up to now, the Agency has not had to resort to directed assignments.

The FSL program will probably stay with us for a few more years at least. AFSA’s goal is to keep the numbers as low as possible, to fight the extension of the FSL program and to increase the number of FSOs coming in through the normal intake program (Junior Officer Program). In addition, we will be monitoring HR to ensure that management respects the agreements we have negotiated to reduce the negative career impact on career FSOs.

I hope that I have clarified some points about the FSL program although I am sure there will still be issues to discuss. We are here to represent you and welcome your input and questions.

(Full disclosure: AFSA offers membership to FSL officers, and will continue to do so. There is one wrinkle to their membership: AFSA is not able to advocate for their eligibility to compete for promotion or assignment with career Foreign Service officers.)

 



 



What Happened to the AFSA USAID VP Blog? During AFSA's election season, the election committee determined that a link to my private blog could not appear on the AFSA website. The link will be reinserted after the election cycle is over on July 15, 2007.