type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Office Hotline\n\n Office of Inspector General 202.692.2900\n peacecorps.gov/OIG\n OIG Reports\n 202.692.2915 \xe2\x80\xab \xd7\x80\xe2\x80\xac800.233.5874\n Online Reporting Tool\n OIG@peacecorps.gov\n\n\n\n\nTo: Carrie Hessler-Radelet, Director\n Daljit Bains, Chief Compliance Officer\n\nFrom: Kathy A. Buller, Inspector General\n\nDate: June 13, 2014\n\nSubject: Final Report on the Program Evaluation of Peace Corps/Mexico\n IG-14-04-E\n\nTransmitted for your information is our final report on the Program Evaluation of Peace\nCorps/Mexico.\n\nManagement concurred with all five recommendations. All five recommendations remain open\npending confirmation from the chief compliance officer that the documentation identified in\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s response has been received. In its response, management described actions it is\ntaking or intends to take to address the issues that prompted each of our recommendations. We\nwish to note that in closing recommendations, we are not certifying that the agency has taken\nthese actions or that we have reviewed their effect. Certifying compliance and verifying\neffectiveness are management\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities.\n\nOur comments, which are in the report as Appendix E, address these matters. Please respond\nwith documentation to close the remaining open recommendation within 90 days of receipt of\nthis memorandum.\n\nYou may address questions regarding follow-up or documentation to Assistant Inspector General\nfor Evaluation Jim O\xe2\x80\x99Keefe at 202.692.2904 or to Senior Evaluator Jerry Black at 202.692.2912.\n\nPlease accept our thanks for your cooperation and assistance in our review.\n\ncc: Stacy Rhodes, Chief of Staff/Chief of Operations\n Jacklyn Dao, White House Liaison\n Bill Rubin, General Counsel\n Carlos Torres, Associate Director, Global Operations\n Helen Lowman, Associate Director, Office of Volunteer Recruitment and Selection\n Nina Favor, Acting Regional Director, Inter-America and the Pacific Operations\n Daniel Evans, Country Director, Peace Corps/Mexico\n Heather Zissler, Director of Programming and Training, Peace Corps/Mexico\n Malena Vazquez, Safety and Security Coordinator, Peace Corps/Mexico\n Brian Riley, Chief of Operations, Inter-America and the Pacific Operations\n Amy Johnson, Chief of Program and Training, Inter-America and the Pacific Operations\n Patricia Barkle, Deputy Chief Compliance Officer\n Mexico Country Desk\n\x0cPeace Corps\nOffice of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n PC/Mexico Environment Volunteer Rebecca Roberts with friend\n\n\n\n\n Flag of Mexico\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report:\n Peace Corps/Mexico\n IG-14-04-E\n June 2014\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nBACKGROUND\nMore than 250 Peace Corps Volunteers have served the people of Mexico since the program was\nfirst launched in 2003. There are two project sectors in Mexico: technology transfer for\neconomic development (tech transfer), and environmental awareness and resource management\nto address climate change (environment). Peace Corps/Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s (hereafter \xe2\x80\x9cthe post\xe2\x80\x9d) fiscal year\n(FY) 2013 budget was 1.9 million. 1 At the time of the evaluation, the post had 23 permanent staff\npositions, 53 Volunteers (including seven Peace Corps Response Volunteers2), and 18 trainees\ncompleting their pre-service training (PST) prior to taking the oath to serve as Volunteers.\n\nWHAT WE FOUND\nThe Peace Corps operates in Mexico pursuant to agreements with Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s National Council on\nScience and Technology (CONACYT) and the country\xe2\x80\x99s Ministry of Environment and Natural\nResources (SEMARNAT). The agency has not signed a bilateral country agreement with the\ngovernment of Mexico, though several attempts have been made to secure one. Mexico is the\nonly Peace Corps country with which the agency has not signed a bilateral country agreement.\nThe lack of a country agreement has limited the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 ability to develop new\nprogramming areas, partners, and Volunteer sites in areas of need throughout Mexico.\n\nVolunteers have served safely in Mexico since the program started even as areas of the country\nhave been increasingly affected by drug-related violence. The Peace Corps has adhered to state-\nby-state travel restrictions for U.S. citizens recommended by the U.S. Embassy\xe2\x80\x99s security\npersonnel in Mexico, placing Volunteers in states with few travel warnings. In general, the post\xe2\x80\x99s\nsafety and security program functioned well, but Volunteer site locator forms did not always\ncontain accurate or complete information.\n\nProgram managers closely engaged and coordinated with host agencies CONACYT and\nSEMARNAT in the selection of Volunteers. While the overall technical qualifications and\nprofessionalism of Volunteers in Mexico were very high, many Volunteers did not speak or\nunderstand Spanish at a reasonable level of proficiency, and the post had provided inconsistent\nsupport for on-going Spanish language learning needs. Leadership at the post engaged\nVolunteers in multiple ways to identify and address challenges, in particular through an effective\nVolunteer Advisory Committee (VAC). Medical and administrative supports were functioning\nwell.\n\nThe tech transfer project did not focus on meeting the needs of people in poor areas of the\ncountry, as the Peace Corps Act specifies. In addition, tech transfer Volunteers were not\nreceiving responses or feedback on their work reports. Environment Volunteers were not placed\nin areas of need identified by SEMARNAT. Further, the post lacked timely and useful\n\n\n1\n This amount does not include the salaries, benefits, and related cost of U.S. direct hires assigned to post and other\ncosts the agency has determined should be centrally-budgeted.\n2\n Peace Corps Response provides qualified professionals the opportunity to undertake short-term assignments in\nvarious programs around the world.\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico i\n\x0cinformation about the academic interests and needs of Volunteers in the Masters International\nprogram.\n\nSome issues that affected Volunteers and staff were driven by agency-wide policy changes, or\ndecisions and initiatives coming from headquarters. Volunteers were frustrated with changes to\nthe agency\xe2\x80\x99s AfterCorps health program. Staff at post reported that recent initiatives, guidelines\nand expectations generated by various offices at Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 headquarters had created a\nworkload that was stressful and difficult to complete.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS IN BRIEF\nOur report contains five recommendations, which, if implemented, should strengthen post\noperations and correct the deficiencies detailed in the accompanying report.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i\n\nHOST COUNTRY BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1\n\nP EACE CORPS PROGRAM BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2\n\nEVALUATION RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 3\n P ROGRAMMING ..................................................................................................................................................... 3\n\n TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 9\n\n VOLUNTEER SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 13\n\n MANAGEMENT CONTROLS ................................................................................................................................ 19\n\n\nOTHER AREAS OF CONCERN ............................................................................................................. 20\n\nLIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 23\n\nAPPENDIX A: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY............................................................... 24\n\nAPPENDIX B: INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED.......................................................................................... 25\n\nAPPENDIX C: L IST OF A CRONYMS ................................................................................................... 28\n\nAPPENDIX D: AGENCY\xe2\x80\x99S RESPONSE TO THE PRELIMINARY REPORT ........................................... 29\n\nAPPENDIX E: OIG COMMENTS ......................................................................................................... 36\n\nAPPENDIX F: PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPLETION AND OIG CONTACT ................................. 37\n\x0c HOST COUNTRY BACKGROUND\nThe United Mexican States shares a border with the United States to the north; Guatemala,\nBelize, and the Caribbean Sea to the southeast; and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. After\nbeing colonized by Spain for three centuries, Mexico declared its independence in 1810. In 1821,\nfollowing a decade-long Mexican War of Independence, Spain formally recognized Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s\nindependence.\n\nMexico\xe2\x80\x99s GDP is $1.79 trillion. The economy is primarily driven by oil and gas production,\nwhich generates more than 70 percent of the country\xe2\x80\x99s revenue. Other sectors include tourism,\nindustrial production, textiles and clothing, and agriculture. The United States is Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s\nprimary trading partner. In 2012, the United States supplied 49.9 percent of Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s foreign\nimports and purchased 78 percent of its exports. Many Mexican families receive remittances\nfrom millions of Mexicans working in the United States.\n\nAccording to the 2013 United Nations\xe2\x80\x99 Human Development report, Mexico ranks among\ncountries in the \xe2\x80\x9chigh human development\xe2\x80\x9d category, 61 out of 187 countries. 3 Among 65 active\nPeace Corps countries, only Panama (59) and Palau (52) rank above Mexico in terms of the\nhuman development index. Poverty in Mexico is nevertheless widespread, particularly in\nsouthern states of the country. In 2010, an estimated 52 million people lived in poverty,\nincluding 11.7 million (10.4 percent of its population) in extreme poverty. Adjusted for the\neffects of its income inequality, Mexico would fall from the \xe2\x80\x9chigh\xe2\x80\x9d to the \xe2\x80\x9cmedium\xe2\x80\x9d human\ndevelopment category.\n\nIn the 1980s, as the Colombian government began to crack down on drug trafficking in\nColombia, drug trafficking and associated security problems became worse in Mexico. In 2006,\nMexico\xe2\x80\x99s new President, Felipe Calder\xc3\xb3n, declared war on the drug cartels, and the country fell\ninto an increasingly violent and costly drug war. Analysts estimate that since 2006 drug cartel\nrelated violence in Mexico has led to 60,000 homicides. In 2012, Enrique Pe\xc3\xb1a Nieto was elected\npresident after promising to end the violence by focusing on public safety.\n\nVolunteers have served safely in Mexico since 2004, throughout these years of increasing drug-\nrelated violence. The Peace Corps has adhered to state-by-state travel restrictions for U.S.\ncitizens recommended by the U.S. Embassy\xe2\x80\x99s security personnel in Mexico. Volunteers in\nMexico have been placed in states that the U.S. Embassy has indicated are safe for travel by U.S.\ncitizens. The map below shows travel advisories issued by the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, and\ngeneral placement of Volunteers.\n\n\n\n\n3\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe Human Development Report\xe2\x80\x9d publishes an annual Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI provides a\ncomposite measure of three basic dimensions of human development: health, education and income. Countries are\nranked from \xe2\x80\x9cvery high human development\xe2\x80\x9d to \xe2\x80\x9clow human development\xe2\x80\x9d based on related data.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 1\n\x0c Figure 1. Travel Advisories and Volunteer Placement in Mexico\n\n\n States with\n Peace Corps\n Volunteers\n in Mexico\n\n\n\n\n PC Office in\n Queretaro\n\n\n\n\n PEACE CORPS PROGRAM BACKGROUND\nThe Peace Corps opened its program in Mexico in 2003 at the request of CONACYT. Almost\n120 Volunteers have since supported many of CONACYT\xe2\x80\x99s science and technology research\ncenters, building local capacity in the areas of technology transfer, business and organizational\ndevelopment, engineering, and research and development. CONACYT Volunteers have also\ntaught English and technical writing to their Mexican counterparts. In 2006, the Peace Corps\nsigned a second agreement with SEMARNAT, which has allowed more than 130 Volunteers\nthus far to contribute to SEMARNAT\xe2\x80\x99s environment and natural resource management programs\nin central Mexico. The Peace Corps operates in Mexico pursuant to its two agreements with\nCONACYT and SEMARNAT. However, the agency has not signed a bilateral country\nagreement with the government of Mexico, despite several attempts to secure one. Mexico is the\nonly country where the Peace Corps does not operate on the basis of a bilateral country\nagreement. This has created constraints which are discussed under Evaluation Results below.\n\nApproximately 250 Volunteers, including 18 Peace Corps Response Volunteers (PCRVs), have\nserved in Mexico since the program began. At the beginning of this evaluation 53 Volunteers,\nincluding seven PCRVs, were serving in Mexico. A group of 18 trainees were in PST and swore-\nin formally as Volunteers during our field work in Mexico.\n\nA more detailed explanation of the two project sectors are discussed below:\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 2\n\x0c \xef\x82\xb7 Tech Transfer\n Volunteers in the tech transfer project carry out cooperative activities, requested by\n CONACYT, that support its science and technology research centers and affiliated\n institutions and universities. The goals of the tech transfer project are to promote and\n facilitate technology transfer, to strengthen business and organizational development, and to\n strengthen the scientific and technical capabilities of Mexican researchers and students.\n Volunteers work with their Mexican counterparts to promote technology transfer ideas and\n practices, to identify technologies with market potential, and to improve English language\n and teaching skills within CONACYT centers and affiliated universities.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Environment\n Volunteers in the environment project collaborate with and provide technical assistance to\n SEMARNAT\xe2\x80\x99s offices and protected areas in central Mexico. Volunteers are placed with\n SEMARNAT state offices, local municipalities, or in rural communities near protected areas.\n Environment Volunteers include natural resource management specialists, specialists in\n geographic information systems (GIS), and Volunteers with expertise in the management of\n protected areas, parks, forests and watersheds, biodiversity conservation, and environmental\n education. Environment Volunteers also promote sustainable technologies like fuel-efficient\n stoves and solar ovens.\n\nThis is the first evaluation of the post that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has conducted.\nThe post\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2013 budget was 1.9 million.4 At the time of the evaluation the post had 23\npermanent staff positions.\n\n\n\n EVALUATION RESULTS\nPROGRAMMING\n\nThe evaluation assessed the extent to which the post has developed and implemented programs\nintended to increase the capacity of host country communities to meet their own technical needs.\nTo determine this, we analyzed the following:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 the coordination between the Peace Corps and the host country in determining\n development priorities and Peace Corps program areas;\n \xef\x82\xb7 whether post is meeting its project objectives;\n \xef\x82\xb7 counterpart selection and quality of counterpart relationships with Volunteers;\n \xef\x82\xb7 site development policies and practices.\n\nIn reviewing counterpart relationships, project plans, and small grants management, we found no\nsignificant areas of concern that would necessitate action by the post. In reviewing site\ndevelopment and Volunteer placement, we found that some action is required.\n\n4\n This amount does not include the salaries, benefits, and related cost of U.S. direct hires assigned to post and other\ncosts the agency has determined should be centrally-budgeted.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 3\n\x0cCounterpart Selection and Relationships with Volunteers. During field work we interviewed\nVolunteers about their counterpart relationships. We also had an opportunity to meet\ncounterparts and conduct one-on-one interviews with three of them. Of the 20 Volunteers we\ninterviewed, all but one had at least one primary counterpart to work with. Eight Volunteers\nreported that their working relationship with their primary counterpart was either good or very\ngood:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cHe is polite and kind, but he also does not beat around the bush much, and he asks for results. He has\n ideas and wants results.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cIt is really good actually. I feel comfortable talking to him about things. He has been really supportive of\n me.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAlso, a few counterparts requested interviews with us and related their positive impressions of\nthe Volunteers they had collaborated with:\n \xe2\x80\x9cI have good things to say about Peace Corps. I have made two very close friends from the Volunteers who\n worked with me. They really came to help, and cared a lot and they added a lot of value. Almost all of them\n have been great. They all came and did their work with the [CONACYT] center and they also were\n engaged in secondary activities, too, so that they could get out of the center and do something that was\n more\xe2\x80\xa6that was proactive and social.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSome Volunteers had experienced counterpart turnover that complicated their efforts to establish\neffective working relationships with their counterparts. Volunteers and ministry officials\nexplained to us that the recent high counterpart turnover was driven by politics, as counterparts\nwere transferred, fired, or replaced after recent elections. High counterpart turnover was not\nwithin the control of the Peace Corps, nor likely to recur frequently as a problem for Volunteers.\n\nProject Plans. Both the tech transfer and environment project frameworks had recently been\nrevised and endorsed. Volunteers we interviewed conveyed a strong understanding of the goals\nand objectives of their primary assignments: 17 Volunteers understood the goals of their project\nwell or very well, and 13 Volunteers responded that they believed they were able to accomplish\nthe goals of their project \xe2\x80\x9cwell\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery well.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSmall Grants Management.5 Volunteers we interviewed who were managing projects funded\nthrough the Small Project Assistance (SPA) program reported that their SPA projects were\nprogressing well. We reviewed the post\xe2\x80\x99s management of its small grants program and had no\nconcerns. The post had experienced a staffing gap in its grants coordinator position and in\nresponse had relied on a third year Volunteer leader as its grants coordinator while it searched for\na permanent local hire for the position. Volunteers expressed appreciation for the support the\n\n\n5\n The agency\xe2\x80\x99s small grants program includes five types of grants and funding sources: Small Project Assistance\n(SPA), Peace Corps Partnership Program (PCPP), Volunteer Activities Support and Training (VAST), Feed the\nFuture (FTF), and Energy Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA). Small grants projects Volunteers manage\nshould be designed to facilitate sustainable grassroots development by building local capacity.\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 4\n\x0cPeace Corps Volunteer leader (PCVL) and other staff provided in reviewing and approving grant\napplications, work plans, and reports.\n\nVolunteer Selection and Site Development. Volunteer selection and placement in Mexico is\ndriven by requirements in the agreements between the Peace Corps, SEMARNAT and\nCONACYT. Before the Peace Corps can formally invite an applicant whom it has recruited for\npotential service in Mexico, SEMARNAT and CONACYT must approve the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s\nqualifications in relationship to particular sites that want a Volunteer. Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 staff in\nMexico must therefore focus on \xe2\x80\x98matchmaking\xe2\x80\x99 between SEMARNAT and CONACYT sites and\napplicant profiles. Once staff has facilitated the match of an applicant to a particular site, formal\ninvitations to serve are sent to the applicant, and SEMARNAT and CONACYT begin to process\nvisas for each applicant. Because each visa is specific to a particular site and applicant, the result\nof this unique selection and placement process is that Volunteers in Mexico have been assigned\nto sites before they arrive in country for pre-service training. 6\n\nSixteen of 20 Volunteers responded that they were either \xe2\x80\x9csatisfied\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery satisfied\xe2\x80\x9d with their\nsite. Seventeen Volunteers said they had enough work to do either \xe2\x80\x9cmost of the time\xe2\x80\x9d or\n\xe2\x80\x9calways.\xe2\x80\x9d No Volunteer we interviewed had requested a site change for security reasons.\nVolunteer files contained correspondence that documented the involvement of CONACYT and\nSEMARNAT officials in the approval of specific Volunteer site assignments and scopes of work,\nas required under the agreements with both agencies.\n\nThe evaluation uncovered some areas that require management attention. Volunteers were not\nengaged in meeting the basic needs of people in the poorest areas of Mexico.\n\nTech transfer Volunteers were insufficiently engaged in meeting the basic needs of people in\npoor areas of Mexico.\n\nAccording to the Peace Corps Act, Congress intended the Peace Corps to send Volunteers to help\ncountries \xe2\x80\x9cparticularly in meeting the basic needs of those living in the poorest areas\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Congressional declaration of purpose (a) The Congress of the United States declares that\n it is the policy of the United States and the purpose of this chapter to promote world\n peace and friendship through a Peace Corps\xe2\x80\xa6to help the peoples of such countries and\n areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower, particularly in meeting the basic.\n needs of those living in the poorest areas of such countries [emphasis added], and to\n help promote a better understanding of the American people\xe2\x80\xa6.\n\nThe focus of primary activities of tech transfer Volunteers did not relate to the\nbasic needs of Mexicans in poor areas of the country. Tech transfer Volunteers\nworked in well-resourced research centers staffed with highly educated Mexicans.\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe can only work with CONACYT centers, so the people we work with are well\n educated. I think all of them have been to the United States at some point, and they are\n experts in their field. They don\xe2\x80\x99t need my expertise\xe2\x80\xa6And they are probably more\n worldly than I am.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n6\n In most Peace Corps posts, a Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s site placement is determined several weeks into PST.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 5\n\x0c \xe2\x80\x9cIn our center, it is pretty high tech. We actually have to scan our fingerprints when we come and go.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nFigure 2. Computer servers at a CONACYT center Figure 3. Conference room at technical university\n\n\n\n\nCONACYT is a network of research centers throughout Mexico with a broad range of scientific\nand technical focus areas. Its mission and vision statements refer generally to the idea of\npromoting the welfare of society through knowledge. The work CONACYT had approved as\nprimary assignments for tech transfer Volunteers did not relate to basic needs of Mexicans, but\nrather to product-related needs of particular industries and business sectors in Mexico, as well as\nto indirect job-creation that might result from the technology transfer efforts at CONACYT\ncenters.\n \xe2\x80\x9cIt depends on how you classify basic needs. But I mean it\xe2\x80\x99s like, a basic need for the dairy industry. I\n think they [CONACYT researchers] are going to patent and market the vaccine. It\xe2\x80\x99s not like they are doing\n it for the Mexican people.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI think we are assisting the country at a different level, and that is a level that the country needs. That is\n want the government wanted\xe2\x80\xa6.We work with people that are really well educated, but that is the state\n where we are\xe2\x80\xa6This effort is fundamental for Mexico and also the United States. If we create more jobs,\n people will stay in Mexico and we can be more productive and better partners for the United States.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSome tech transfer Volunteers had developed secondary activities they could engage in on a\nlimited basis, like community health outreach, or working with orphans--activities Volunteers\nundertake worldwide to help poor communities meet their basic needs. However, Volunteers and\nstaff acknowledged that the full-time nature of most primary assignments left little time for\nVolunteers to develop secondary activities.\n\n It\xe2\x80\x99s an eight-to-five job for Volunteers here. The only way they really get involved in basic needs is through\n a secondary community project but it has to be after hours or on weekends.\n\nThe agreements between the Peace Corps and CONACYT and SEMARNAT provide that\nCONACYT and SEMARNAT decide which Volunteers are invited to serve in Mexico, and\nwhich jobs they will fulfill. Staff expressed that the effect of the agreement is that the host\nagencies indicated which sites want a Volunteer, and then the Peace Corps tried to find and\nmatch a qualified Volunteer to the particular job. The Volunteer selection and placement process\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 6\n\x0coccurred in a way that did not provide scope for the Peace Corps to consider the basic needs of\nMexicans in poor areas as part of its site development process.\n\n The HCN [host country national] agencies decide where they will work and with whom. So for instance,\n the counterparts say we really want this specialist at X center, and [the program managers] then follow up.\n Our program managers work with the on-the-ground sites after agencies have already said where they want\n them.\n\nAnother factor that has diminished the agency\xe2\x80\x99s ability to develop sites in new geographic or\nprogrammatic areas has been the lack of a bilateral country agreement. Negotiations in 2010 and\nagain in 2013 between Peace Corps and the Mexican government to execute a country agreement\nsimilar to the agreements that provide the basis for Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 operations in other countries\nwere unsuccessful. According to agency officials we spoke to, Peace Corps decided it could not\nagree to the terms of the most recent agreement that had been proposed by the Mexican\ngovernment. In short, the proposed agreement would have considered the post to be part of the\ndiplomatic mission of the US embassy, a decision that would have run counter to the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nhistory since 1961 of remaining formally separate from the US embassy\xe2\x80\x99s official diplomatic and\nforeign policy institutions. There is little optimism among agency personnel we spoke to\nconcerning the prospect of securing a bilateral country agreement at this point: \xe2\x80\x9cThere is just not\nmuch of a resolution on the horizon here. If there were a middle ground it would have been\nfound.\xe2\x80\x9d The lack of a country agreement means that the Peace Corps does not have the flexibility\nto pursue opportunities unrelated to either of its two agency-specific agreements with\nCONACYT and SEMARNAT:\n\n It limits us. We can\xe2\x80\x99t consider working outside of these areas without a bilateral agreement.\n\nIn addition to the provisions in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s agreement with CONACYT, the post has been\nconstrained in placing Volunteers in geographic areas of greater need due to two factors: the\nhigher cost of supporting Volunteers farther from its office in Queretaro, and a more limited\npresence of CONACYT centers in states that are both high in poverty and safe enough for\nVolunteer placement.\n We are also very limited in terms of where we can work and who we can work with. The central area where\n we have our Volunteers is as big as all of Central America, but because of the limited number of partners\n and the MOUs, it\xe2\x80\x99s not really all available to us.\n\nOfficials we spoke with from SEMARNAT and its sub-agencies expressed disappointment with\nthe location of environment Volunteers in relationship to areas of high need in Mexico.\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI know that Chiapas and Oaxaca are green and you could put Volunteers there. This is an area of need for\n us. I think the Peace Corps should consider giving a few Volunteers the opportunity to work down there.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe location of Volunteers is not great right now. It\xe2\x80\x99s too centralized. Since 2006 we have not had a\n Volunteer down there.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cOne of the main obstacles is the location of Volunteers. I get the reasons. I understand the security\n concerns and limits the U.S. government has placed on the Peace Corps, I do. But at the same time I would\n like to see Volunteers in the south more. That\xe2\x80\x99s really where the need is in Mexico and I think it\xe2\x80\x99s a place\n where the Peace Corps could have a very significant impact at the local level in the south of Mexico.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 7\n\x0cCONACYT and SEMARNAT have some centers and offices in \xe2\x80\x9cgreen\xe2\x80\x9d areas of Mexico with\nhigher levels of need, including Oaxaca and Chiapas.\n\nFigure 4. Travel Advisories and Mexican States without Volunteers\n\n\n\n\n Peace Corps\n office in\n Queretaro\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cGreen\xe2\x80\x9d states\n without Peace\n Corps Volunteers\n\n\n\n Oaxaca Chiapas\n\n\n\n\nFigure 5. Percentage of state population in poverty, 20127\n\n\n\n\nSome Volunteers in both projects reported to us that they believed they were either taking jobs\nthat qualified Mexicans could be hired to do, or reducing the need within their office or center to\nfind and pay for a qualified Mexican to do the same work.\n\n7\n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_poverty_rate#cite_note-1. Also, Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s National\nCommission of Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL):\n(http://web.coneval.gob.mx/Medicion/Paginas/Medici%C3%B3n/Pobreza%202012/Pobreza-2012.aspx)\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 8\n\x0c \xe2\x80\x9cThey have been relying on Volunteers for I don't know how many years now and if they hadn't had a\n Volunteer would they have hired someone to do this? Maybe, but maybe not. If they had never had us\n maybe they would have been forced to hire someone\xe2\x80\xa6I don't know if I'm directly taking someone's job\n away but maybe they would have had to hire someone.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI run into\xe2\x80\xa6Mexicans who can do my job, and in fact my counterpart who had been there a year before I\n got there slowly got pushed down and then he quit. He got kind of pushed out because I was there and\n could do it.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI don\xe2\x80\x99t know if he took someone\xe2\x80\x99s job. He kind of just kept them from hiring someone.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe post had attempted to place and support Volunteers in more southern states of Mexico in the\npast, but was unable to sufficiently support Volunteers at this distance from the main office in\nQueretaro. Post staff we spoke to about this issue was receptive to the idea of placing more\nVolunteers in areas of greater need within southern Mexico, but mentioned that additional\nresources would be required to support those Volunteers.\n\n\n We recommend:\n\n 1. That the country director develop a plan for placing\n and supporting tech transfer and environment\n Volunteers in areas of greater need within Mexico.\n\n\nTRAINING\n\nAnother objective of the post evaluation is to answer the question, \xe2\x80\x9cDoes training prepare\nVolunteers for Peace Corps service?\xe2\x80\x9d To answer this question we considered such factors as\ntraining adequacy and planning and development of the training life cycle.\n\nIn reviewing the post\xe2\x80\x99s documentation of its training program, including its methods for\nassessing each trainee\xe2\x80\x99s learning progress during PST, its processes for evaluating and improving\ntraining based on feedback from training participants, and the adequacy of resources to support\nthe post\xe2\x80\x99s training program, we found no significant areas of concern that would necessitate\naction by the post. In reviewing the Spanish language abilities and on-going language learning\nneeds of Volunteers, we found that some action is required.\n\nAssessment of Trainees\xe2\x80\x99 Achievement of Learning Objectives. The post tracks the status of\nall trainees\xe2\x80\x99 achievement of each learning objective during PST, including agency-wide learning\nobjectives that all Volunteers are expected to achieve, as well as learning objectives specific to\nMexico and the tech transfer and environment projects. The tracking tool we examined was well-\norganized and showed whether trainees had completed or achieved particular learning objectives\nof PST, or whether they were still \xe2\x80\x9cin progress.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nEvaluation of Training. The post engaged in a range of evaluation exercises to assess the\neffectiveness of its training program, and make improvements based on feedback and\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 9\n\x0csuggestions from Volunteers. We reviewed several surveys and summaries of trainee feedback,\nand training staff explained to us how training had been revised in response to these evaluations.\n\nAdequacy of Training Resources. The training team at the post had experienced turnover prior\nto our fieldwork as the long-serving training manager left to pursue other opportunities. Training\nstaff we interviewed reported being over-worked. The post was in the process of hiring new\nprogramming and training specialists to provide additional support, including taking on some\ntraining responsibilities.\n\nTraining Effectiveness. Volunteers we interviewed were generally satisfied with the quality of\ntraining the Peace Corps offered.\n\n Table 1: Volunteer Perceptions of Training Effectiveness 8\n Area Percent of Volunteers Average\n Who Rated Training Rating\n Favorably\n PST:\n Local Languagea 84% 4.3\n Cross Culturalb 95% 4.4\n Safety and\n 65% 3.8\n Securityc\n Medicald 55% 3.8\n Technicale 44% 3.5\n Early ISTf 63% 3.8\n Mid-Service ISTg 67% 3.8\n All Volunteer\n 79% 4.2\n Conferenceh\n Source: OIG Interviews.\n a\n N=19, bN=20, c N=20, dN, =20, eN=18, fN=16, gN=6 hN=14\n\nSome training areas got particularly high marks. Volunteers made positive comments about the\nquality of the post\xe2\x80\x99s language and culture training:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cThere was a lot which was helpful. Politics, economics, government structure were very well presented\n and helpful.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe teachers were great. Very patient and had lots of different materials for us. They were strict about\n speaking only in Spanish and immersion in the classroom.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOther training topics were rated less positively by Volunteers. In particular, Volunteers reported\nthat the technical training sessions were not as useful and relevant as other sessions. However,\nVolunteers and staff explained that given the diverse backgrounds and experiences of the\ntrainees, as well as the diversity of technical jobs each trainee was preparing to do, the Peace\nCorps did as good a job as could reasonably be expected. The following Volunteer comment\n8\n In calculating the percentage of favorable ratings for this table, we used a five-point scale, with five being most\nfavorable and one being least favorable. A rating of three was considered neither favorable nor unfavorable. The\npercent of Volunteers who rated training favorably includes those who rated training as either a four or a five.cent\nof Volunteers Who Rated Training Favorably\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 10\n\x0crepresents the three: neither effective nor ineffective response that was common. Seven of 18\nVolunteers rated technical training similarly.\n\n [The technical training] gave me a good general overview of CONACYT and the centers and the business\n environment. The field trips to see the centers gave us a good idea of the environment we would be in, and\n some challenges we would face. But training I would use day to day was not there because we were all\n going into different assignments. They did as well as they could given that. Also, they were required to\n train us on a bunch of stuff that was not relevant--mostly the FITU [Focus In/Train Up] sessions that were\n not relevant. That was the worst part.\n\nAs with technical training, about 30 percent of Volunteers rated both safety and security and\nmedical training as a three: neither effective nor ineffective. In their comments the most\nfrequently cited reason for the rating of three was that the trainer had been required to read from\na script:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6When HQ was putting out standardized trainings on the slide that was really challenging for us as a\n training group in general because we did not receive what we needed. There was very few trainings related\n to Mexico. Staff was unhappy\xe2\x80\xa6and we were frustrated. It made it that much more challenging to keep a\n positive attitude. So, I would say it was a three\xe2\x80\xa6because it was a top down approach for things that really\n should not have been a top down approach. There was a lack of cultural context\xe2\x80\xa6 The effect of the script--\n it just made it so we wanted to tune it out.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe had to sit through the scripted sessions on SARRR [sexual assault risk reduction and response] and\n they are hard and heavy topics. Reading from a script feels distant and unwelcoming. That said, [the\n trainer] did instill confidence in me but this is more about [the trainer] than the quality of the script. I felt\n like the training session was so hard hitting I was almost crying.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cIt included some information we needed to know, but it was read from a script. Treated us like teenagers.\n Literally read from a script.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWhile some Volunteers made critical remarks about the effectiveness of particular training\nsessions, very few Volunteers rated any particular training session as ineffective. Most\nVolunteers reported that the training the Peace Corps provided was effective.\n\nThe evaluation uncovered some training-related areas that require management attention. The\nremainder of this section provides more information about these topics.\n\nVolunteers frequently did not meet the post\xe2\x80\x99s Spanish language swearing-in requirements,\nand the post had provided inconsistent support for Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 on-going Spanish language\nlearning.\n\nThe Peace Corps Act states:\n\n No person shall be assigned to duty as a volunteer under this chapter in any foreign country or area unless\n at the time of such assignment he possesses such reasonable proficiency as his assignment requires in\n speaking the language of the country or area to which he is assigned.\n\nDue to the difficulty of recruiting highly-skilled and experienced Volunteers for Mexico who\nalso speak Spanish, there is no Spanish language requirement for applicants to the tech transfer\nproject or the natural resource management specialist positions in the environment project.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 11\n\x0cAccording to an analysis by the office of Volunteer Selection and Placement, the lack of a\nSpanish language requirement \xe2\x80\x9cgreatly assists Mexico in filling all positions.\xe2\x80\x9d Thus, a relatively\nhigh percentage of Volunteers arrive for training in Mexico with no or very minimal Spanish\nlanguage proficiency.\n\nThe Volunteer handbook in Mexico specifies that every trainee is required to reach an\nintermediate low level of Spanish by the end of PST in order to be officially sworn-in as a\nVolunteer. Those trainees who do not test at or above an intermediate-low level of Spanish may\nbe given the opportunity to swear-in conditionally. According to the handbook, Volunteers who\nswear-in conditionally should prepare a language learning plan, be closely monitored by staff,\nand re-tested after approximately three months at which point the conditional Volunteer status\nmay be removed provided the trainee reached the intermediate low level. If the Volunteer still\nhas not reached intermediate low, the country director may \xe2\x80\x9cdetermine what further action will\nbe taken.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nLanguage testing scores were maintained in the post\xe2\x80\x99s Volunteer Information Database\nApplication (VIDA). We examined all available language scores in VIDA for Volunteers who\nserved in Mexico. 9 Out of 211 Volunteers with LPI testing scores in VIDA, 33, or 16 percent,\ndid not reach intermediate low by the end of PST. VIDA contained follow-up Spanish test results\nfor just six of these 33 Volunteers. Prior to 2012, the post was not requiring a language learning\nplan or follow-up Spanish test for Volunteers who had sworn-in on a conditional basis.\n\nThe percentage of Volunteers in Mexico who lacked reasonable proficiency in Spanish was\nrelatively high. Six of 20 Volunteers we interviewed reported that lack of Spanish hindered their\nability to integrate in their communities. Volunteers also reported that their inadequate Spanish\nskills made them less effective in their primary assignments. Lack of Spanish resulted in some\nVolunteers not being able to effectively use the high skills they possessed--and for which they\nhad been recruited--and resorting to proof-reading English papers, or giving English classes:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI can see why they don\xe2\x80\x99t really want me to be on some other projects\xe2\x80\x94because I can\xe2\x80\x99t understand what is\n going on and I can\xe2\x80\x99t communicate my experience to them. How am I supposed to go into a meeting with\n these scientists and PhDs and speak like a kindergartener and get my point across?\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cNo one speaks English in my office and it is a very high level job. I was too good when I finished [PST] to\n get tutoring. But in a professional setting it is different and it just does not look good for me not to be able\n to express myself\xe2\x80\xa6Here I am mediocre because of my Spanish. If I have to work at advanced high in my\n office then [the Peace Corps] office should support my language until I get to that.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nA counterpart we interviewed who had worked directly with six tech transfer Volunteers\nemphasized the importance of Spanish language skills:\n Volunteers with better Spanish are definitely more effective than those who can\xe2\x80\x99t speak it. I have seen this.\n They are happier and more productive when they can communicate well in Spanish. Of course. Also\xe2\x80\xa6it\xe2\x80\x99s\n important for Volunteers to have Spanish to be able to do a secondary project. It\xe2\x80\x99s definitely a problem\n outside the [CONACYT] centers for those who can\xe2\x80\x99t speak Spanish.\n\n\n\n\n9\n Test scores were recorded in VIDA starting with the second group of Volunteers who went through PST in 2005.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 12\n\x0cEight Volunteers (40 percent) expressed a strong need for on-going Spanish language support.\nThe language coordinator provided language resources to Volunteers to facilitate ongoing\nlearning. In the past, when the budget allowed, the post had provided a tutoring stipend to\nVolunteers, but support for on-going Spanish language classes or tutors has varied with\nsuccessive Volunteer cohorts. Given the current need and demand among Volunteers for on-\ngoing Spanish language support, and basing predictions of future need on the percentage of\ntrainees in Mexico who have historically not reached intermediate low, it is important for post to\nmake on-going Spanish language learning a higher priority.\n\n\n We recommend:\n\n 2. That the director of programming and training develop\n and implement a plan to prioritize and support ongoing\n Spanish language learning for Volunteers in Mexico.\n\nVOLUNTEER SUPPORT\n\nOur country program evaluation attempts to answer the question, \xe2\x80\x9cHas post provided adequate\nsupport and oversight to Volunteers?\xe2\x80\x9d To determine this, we assessed numerous factors,\nincluding staff-Volunteer communications; project and status report feedback; medical support;\nsafety and security support including staff visits to Volunteer work sites, the Emergency Action\nPlan (EAP), and the handling of crime incidents; and the adequacy of the Volunteer living\nallowance.\n\nIn general, we determined through our evaluation that post has developed a solid Volunteer\nsupport structure. Volunteers were satisfied with staff support in areas of safety and security,\nmedical, and administrative support. Sixteen of 17 Volunteers considered the post staff to be\neither \xe2\x80\x98effective\xe2\x80\x99 or \xe2\x80\x98very effective\xe2\x80\x99 in supporting their adjustment to Volunteer life. The\nfollowing table summarizes Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 ratings of the supportiveness of particular Peace Corps\nstaff members:\n\n Table 2: Responses on Perceptions of Volunteer Support 10\n Area Percent of Volunteers Average\n Who Rated Support Rating\n from Staff Favorably\n Leadership\n Country Director\n 58% 3.9\n (CD)\n Director of\n 11% 1.9\n Program and\n\n10\n In calculating the percentage of favorable ratings for this table, we used a five-point scale, with five being most\nfavorable and one being least favorable. A rating of three was considered neither favorable nor unfavorable. The\npercent of Volunteers who rated staff support favorably includes those who rated it as either a four or a five.\nProgramming was derived by averaging the PMs and PAs. Training was derived from the Training Manager\xe2\x80\x99s score.\nSafety and Security was derived from the SSC\xe2\x80\x99s score. Medical was derived from the PCMO\xe2\x80\x99s score. Admin was\nderived from the DMO\xe2\x80\x99s score.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 13\n\x0c Training (DPT)11\n Programming 86% 4.4\n Training 94% 4.6\n Safety and Security 82% 4.4\n Medical 75% 4.1\n Admin 93% 4.5\n Source: OIG Interviews\n\nThe previous DPT who left the Peace Corps in September 2013 was poorly regarded by\nVolunteers. Volunteers reported the previous DPT to be condescending and ineffective. Just\nprior to fieldwork for the evaluation, the post received a new DPT. During fieldwork the new\nDPT was engaged in addressing some of the areas that had been left unattended by her\npredecessor, including establishing expectations that Volunteer work reports would be reviewed\nand responded to in a more timely manner by program staff, and improving the post\xe2\x80\x99s approach\nto keeping track of all Volunteer site visits.\n\nIn reviewing the VAC, safety and security support, crime incident response, emergency\npreparedness, medical support, living allowance, travel policy, and site visits, OIG found no\nsignificant areas of concern that would necessitate action by the post.\n\nVAC. The evaluation determined that the post\xe2\x80\x99s Volunteer VAC is a high functioning and\neffective forum for discussing Volunteer issues in a professional and productive manner with\nstaff. In Mexico, regional VAC meetings are held quarterly amongst Volunteers, and national\nmeetings occur biannually between elected Volunteer representatives and staff. Volunteers\nreported being highly satisfied with the VAC: 82 percent of Volunteers considered the VAC\n\xe2\x80\x9ceffective\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery effective.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI\xe2\x80\x99m on the VAC for this reason. I think [the CD] genuinely wants to hear about any issues that are\n common to Volunteers.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cIt\xe2\x80\x99s a good idea and a good route for communicating. The office is very open to suggestions from the\n VAC.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSafety and Security. The post closely monitored the security environment of Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 sites\nand took a conservative approach to placement. According to the most recent All Volunteer\nSurvey (AVS), 100 percent of Volunteers reported that they feel \xe2\x80\x98adequately\xe2\x80\x99 to \xe2\x80\x98very\xe2\x80\x99 safe\nwhere they work and travel and 98 percent of Volunteers reported that they feel \xe2\x80\x98adequately\xe2\x80\x99 to\n\xe2\x80\x98very\xe2\x80\x99 safe where they live. Additionally, the evaluation found that Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 housing\ncomplied almost completely with post housing criteria for safety:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Fourteen of 17 houses were 100 percent compliant with the standards.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Two urban houses were 94 percent compliant.\n \xef\x82\xb7 One rural house was 88 percent compliant.\n\n\n\n11\n Score pertains to previous DPT, not the post\xe2\x80\x99s current DPT who arrived at post just prior to fieldwork for this\nevaluation.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 14\n\x0cWe also found that in our sample, 90 percent of Volunteers were able to produce an up-to-date\nEAP, and 90 percent knew where their consolidation point was.\n\nCrime Incident Response. The post adequately responded to crimes committed against\nVolunteers. Five Volunteers in our sample reported that they had been victims of a crime. When\nasked how the post staff responded to the incidents, the majority of Volunteers reported that the\nstaff responded \xe2\x80\x9cwell\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cvery well.\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, at the time of the evaluation, all required staff\nmembers had completed the online sexual assault response training. 12\n\nEmergency Preparedness. We had no concerns regarding the post\xe2\x80\x99s emergency preparations.\nStaff members maintained effective relationships with security personnel at the U.S. Embassy\nand the safety and security coordinator (SSC) was working to further relationships with local law\nenforcement. Safety and security criteria were incorporated into site development to ensure that\nVolunteers were not placed in homes that would expose them to an unnecessary level of risk. In\nJuly 2013, the post completed its medical evacuation plan. During our evaluation we ascertained\nthat the post had a functioning duty officer system and was prepared to respond to Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99\nrequests for assistance.\n\nThe post had not yet reviewed the agency\xe2\x80\x99s new sexual assault response protocols with the U.S.\nEmbassy\xe2\x80\x99s regional security officer, but indicated it would do so.\n\nMedical Support. After several years of Peace Corps medical officer (PCMO) turnover,\nVolunteers appeared satisfied with their medical and health support. They described the PCMO\nas supportive and responsive. Volunteers also appreciated the friendly and helpful attitude of the\nmedical assistant. Almost all of the recommendations made by the Office of Health Services\n(OHS) during their 2012 site visit had been addressed and completed. A follow-up OHS visit\noccurred after our fieldwork in January 2014.\n\nThe new DPT informed us she was in the process of improving the post\xe2\x80\x99s system for tracking all\nsite visits and check-ins with Volunteers so that staff could identify Volunteer support needs,\nincluding physical or emotional health needs, that might otherwise go undetected.\n\nVolunteer Living Allowance. Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 Living Allowance varied according to where the\nVolunteer lived and his or her marital status. 13 Most interviewed Volunteers were satisfied with\nthe adequacy and timeliness of their settling-in and living allowances. Although several\nVolunteers stated that they should receive a higher-tiered stipend, most reported that they were\nstill able to purchase necessities and pay for living expenses.\n\n\n\n\n12\n The training is required for: CDs, DPTs, DMOs, SSCs, associate Peace Corps project managers, programming\nand training specialists, training managers, PCMOs, and any other staff who may function as a duty officer or first\nresponder.\n13\n The post uses a three-tiered scale. Volunteers living in the more expensive urban cities receive the highest\nmonthly allowance, and Volunteers living in more rural towns receive the lowest.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 15\n\x0cThe post had conducted annual surveys to assess the adequacy of Volunteer allowances and\nmade adjustments.14 In the most recent survey, post communicated to Volunteers that 85 percent\nneeded to complete the survey for a living allowance increase to be considered.15 Only 62\npercent of Volunteers completed the survey.\n\nTravel Policy. In 2013, the CD revised Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s leave policy to align it more closely with other\nPeace Corps countries\xe2\x80\x99 leave policies. The revisions required Volunteers to request incidental,\nannual or work-related travel leave if they wanted to travel outside their communities.\nVolunteers were no longer allowed to travel away from their site whenever their office was\nclosed. The policy change was disagreeable to some Volunteers who argued that since their\nprimary assignments were Monday through Friday office jobs, they should be allowed to travel\non weekends. Although a source for tension for some, Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 grievances were being\naddressed through the VAC. Furthermore, the policy was within the guidelines established in the\nPeace Corps Manual 220 \xe2\x80\x9cLeave for Volunteers/Trainees.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSite Visits. At the time of the evaluation, the Inter America and the Pacific (IAP) region was\nseeking input from overseas field staff and revising the July 2012 version of its \xe2\x80\x9cSite\nDevelopment and Site Monitoring Standards and Procedures\xe2\x80\x9d document. Staff at post reported\nthat their efforts to comply with this guidance required a great amount of time and had created\nhigh levels of stress. In January 2014 the IAP region issued revised and updated guidance that\nallowed some additional flexibility for staff.\n\nVolunteers did not report any problems with site visits. Ninety percent of Volunteers said they\nreceived an adequate number of site visits, and seventy-six percent of interviewed Volunteers felt\nthat the site visits met their needs; the remaining 24 percent were neutral. In light of the revised\nsite development and site monitoring standards and procedures, the high degree to which\nVolunteer housing in Mexico met the post\xe2\x80\x99s criteria for safety and security, and Volunteer\nsatisfaction with site visits, we did not have any concerns with the post\xe2\x80\x99s site monitoring\nprocedures.\n\nThe evaluation uncovered some areas that require management attention, particularly related to\nsite locator forms, Masters International (MI) placement, and Volunteer Reporting Feedback\n(VRF). The remainder of this section provides more information about these topics.\n\nVolunteer site locator forms were inaccurate and missing key information.\n\nSite locator forms (SLFs), also called emergency locator forms, are an important component of\nevery Peace Corps post\xe2\x80\x99s EAP. The key information to include on SLF is detailed in Peace\nCorps\xe2\x80\x99 Characteristics and Strategies of a High Performing Post: Post Management Resource\nGuide, Part 11.8, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Post Emergency Action Plan,\xe2\x80\x9d which states in part:\n\n\n\n14\n Posts are required to conduct an annual survey to ensure that all Volunteers receive adequate allowances to obtain\ngoods and services need to safely serve as Volunteers.\n15\n The DMO\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of the living allowance survey results suggest that the 85 percent completion rate was later\nlowered to 75 percent.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 16\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa6 maps to the Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s site and house, emergency communications means and contacts,\n possible modes of transportation, the nearest clinic, airfield, and police post, and various other\n site-related information.\n\nFurthermore, the Office of Safety and Security established a Standard Operating Procedure\noutlining the SSC\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities regarding SLF:\n\n The SSC will coordinate with appropriate staff to ensure that site locator information is\n reviewed during all site visits, including GPS data, where permissible...The SSC will ensure a\n system is in place for the review and improvement of maps to Volunteer residences.\n\nAll Volunteer files we examined contained site locator forms, but only 68 percent of Volunteers\nhad included accurate maps and directions to their houses. Also, only 53 percent of Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99\nfiles included contact information for local police. These omissions and inaccuracies could\ncompromise the ability of staff to respond efficiently to Volunteers who require urgent\nassistance.\n\n We recommend:\n\n 3. That the safety and security coordinator ensure that all\n Volunteer site locator forms contain accurate and\n complete information, and that the post has a process\n for verifying information on site locator forms through\n site visits or other means.\n\nProgram staff did not have timely information about the academic needs of Masters\nInternational (MI) Volunteers invited to serve in Mexico.\n\nMI is a Peace Corps program where students enroll in a master\xe2\x80\x99s degree program and complete\nclasses before going abroad to serve as a Volunteer. Staff in the Placement Office and the MI\nOffice stated that MI Volunteers were expected to be flexible with their education requirements\nand view themselves as \xe2\x80\x9cVolunteers first and students second.\xe2\x80\x9d Invitations to applicants are\nbased on whether their language and technical skills match the post\xe2\x80\x99s Volunteer requests. In most\nPeace Corps posts, a Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s site placement is determined several weeks into PST, allowing\nstaff sufficient time to understand and consider MI Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 research needs as a factor in\nmatching the Volunteer to a particular site.\n\nIn Mexico sites for each Volunteer are identified before applicants arrive in country for PST.\nCONACYT and SEMARNAT officials sponsor each Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s visa based on a particular job\nand site assignment, requiring the post to determine each Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s site before their arrival in\nMexico. This process constrains the ability of staff to learn about the MI Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 research\ninterests unless those interests had been expressed in the Volunteer\xe2\x80\x99s application materials or\ndiscussed by phone with the applicant as part of the post\xe2\x80\x99s Volunteer selection process.\n\nAs a result, some MI Volunteers in Mexico were concerned that their sites were not conducive to\nthe successful completion of the research requirements of their degrees. Staff in Mexico had\nengaged in discussions with Volunteers about the MI program and how to strengthen ties\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 17\n\x0cbetween Peace Corps and universities engaged in the MI program. In order for the post to have\nmore timely information about the MI Volunteer research interests it is important that applicants\nexpress those interests to post in initial discussions and communications prior to departure.\n\n We recommend:\n\n 4. That the regional chief of operations and the director of\n programming and training encourage applicants to\n Peace Corps/Mexico to include information about their\n Master\xe2\x80\x99s International research interests in their pre-\n departure communications with their program\n manager.\n\nTech transfer Volunteers did not receive feedback on their work reports.\n\nVolunteers at the post are required to submit VRFs three times per year, which detail their work\nactivities. The Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 \xe2\x80\x9cProgramming and Training Guidance: Management and\nImplementation\xe2\x80\x9d encourages programming staff to read and provide timely feedback to each of\nthese periodic reports.\n\nOnly 33 percent of Volunteers reported that they received VRF feedback \xe2\x80\x9cmost of the time\xe2\x80\x9d or\n\xe2\x80\x9calways.\xe2\x80\x9d Out of 32 VRFs we reviewed, just two of 15 tech transfer VRFs showed evidence of\nreview and feedback by the program manager, and 15 of 17 environment VRFs showed evidence\nof review and feedback by the program manager.\n\nWhen Volunteers who had received feedback were asked to rate the quality of the feedback, only\n60 percent (nine out of 15) rated it favorably. Several Volunteers reported being told that they\nshould not expect feedback on their VRFs. As a result of the lack of timely, quality feedback,\nsome Volunteers admitted that they no longer put as much detail into their work reports. This\ncould diminish the value of the VRFs for project management purposes and erode the quality of\ninformation post has available for its annual reports on project results.\n\nStaff acknowledged that providing timely feedback had been a challenge and was an area for\nimprovement. These challenges were caused by staff unfamiliarity with the Volunteer Reporting\nTool; staff also reported that sometimes the VRT did not function correctly when they went to\nuse it. In addition, whereas the environment program had a PCVL who could assist and facilitate\nthe program manager\xe2\x80\x99s review of Volunteer reports, the tech transfer program manager had no\nPCVL. The previous DPT did not prioritize the review of VRFs or the provision of feedback to\nVolunteers by staff, and had not established expectations or guidelines concerning the quality,\ntimeliness, and method of providing VRF feedback.\n\nThe post made recent efforts to improve the quality and timeliness of Volunteer feedback. The\nnew DPT had identified the VRF as an area of improvement and had set clearer expectations\nrelated to the review of VRFs and provision of feedback from staff to the Volunteer within 30\ndays. In addition, the post was in the process of hiring a programming and training specialist to\nsupport the tech transfer project.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 18\n\x0c We recommend:\n\n 5. That the director of programming and training ensure\n that Volunteers receive timely feedback from program\n staff on their work reports.\n\n\nMANAGEMENT CONTROLS\n\nAnother key objective of our country program evaluation is to assess the extent to which the\npost\xe2\x80\x99s resources and management practices are adequate for effective post operations. To address\nthis question, we assess a number of factors, including staffing; staff development; office work\nenvironment; collecting and reporting performance data; and the post\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning and\nbudgeting.\n\nIn reviewing PCVL roles, the post\xe2\x80\x99s relationship with headquarters and the embassy, and post\xe2\x80\x99s\nprofessionalism and morale, we found no significant areas of concern that would necessitate\naction by the post.\n\nPCVL Roles. We had no concerns about the PCVL program in Mexico. The PCVL at the post\nduring our field work was highly regarded by Volunteers and received a 93 percent favorable\nrating. Although PCVLs are no longer required to have a Volunteer assignment, the post\ncontinues to encourage PCVLs to have one. While the post\xe2\x80\x99s small number of Volunteers has\nmade in difficult to recruit PCVLs, the post would benefit from more PCVLs in order to assist\nthe programming team by, for example, drafting VRF feedback or assisting with site\ndevelopment and monitoring activities. A PCVL regional model could be helpful, particularly if\npost considers ways to support Volunteers in other states of Mexico farther from Queretaro.\n\nRelationship with Headquarters. The post had a good relationship with headquarters. The\ncountry desk officer reported that he communicates with post every day and by phone with the\nCD every other week. The CD similarly reported having a positive relationship with the Country\nDesk Unit and stated that he tries to keep the Country Desk Unit as informed as possible. We did\ndetermine that staff felt a high level of stress as a result of the recent increase in new\nexpectations from headquarters. This will be further discussed below under Other Areas of\nConcern.\n\nRelationship with the Embassy. The post had an effective working relationship with the U.S.\nEmbassy in Mexico City. The post leadership regularly participated in embassy meetings. The\nembassy staff was very knowledgeable of the Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 operations in Mexico and felt that the\nproject fits in well with the U.S. government\xe2\x80\x99s broader objectives.\n\nProfessionalism and Morale. In general, staff members reported that the office had good\nmorale. Despite high stress levels related to workloads, staff reported that relations in the office\nwere generally respectful and based on a shared sense of mission.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 19\n\x0c OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN\nWe noted the following additional areas that could be improved to enhance efficiency.\n\nThe Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 AfterCorps Program. During fieldwork for this evaluation the agency\nchanged its program for providing subsidized health insurance to Volunteers who complete their\nservice. Previously, Volunteers who completed their service were offered the opportunity to\npurchase health insurance from Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 AfterCorps program for up to 18 months. In the fall\nof 2013, after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in March\n2010, the Peace Corps announced changes to its AfterCorps program. The agency instituted this\nchange because it determined that AfterCorps is a low-cost limited benefit plan which does not\ncomply with the requirement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for \xe2\x80\x9cminimum essential\ncoverage.\xe2\x80\x9d The changes limited AfterCorps coverage for returned Peace Corps Volunteers to\nthree months. These changes surprised and upset Volunteers in Mexico who had considered the\nAfter Corps program as one factor in their decision to apply for Peace Corps service.\n A big attraction was the end of service health insurance: two years of Peace Corps plus one and a half years\n of health insurance would take me pretty close to 65 when I would qualify for health care. After looking\n into the ACA, insurance plans for a single man in my health bracket are significantly more. This impacts\n the status of my retirement. Taking away the end of service insurance is grotesquely unfair.\n\nVolunteers in Mexico who evaluated the financial effect of the change reported that they\nanticipated having to incur higher costs for health insurance, ranging from $200 to $375 more\nper month for the months of coverage no longer available through AfterCorps.16 Regardless of\nwhat the Volunteers will ultimately pay for healthcare coverage, some were upset that the Peace\nCorps had changed its commitment to them after they had taken this incentive into consideration\nwhen deciding whether or not to join the Peace Corps.\n\nThe Peace Corps has advised that RPCVs have several options for coverage after completing\ntheir service. The agency has developed an informational webpage for RPCVs regarding changes\nto the After Corps program.17\n\nWhile we do not have a basis to formulate a recommendation about this issue, we have included\nit in our evaluation report because some Volunteers in Mexico believe that the agency did not\nlive up to its promises.\n\n\n\n\n16\n The actual cost to Volunteers for the plans available in the ACA marketplace will depend on a variety of factors,\nincluding the plan they choose and their household size and income. See https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-\nto-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/\n17\n For more information on Peace Corps AfterCorps program, see: http://passport.peacecorps.gov/2013/12/13/new-\noptions-for-health-insurance-coverage-after-peace-corps-service/\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 20\n\x0cPost Staff Overworked. Staff made it clear during our fieldwork that they felt stress related to\ntheir workloads. In particular, staff experienced anxiety related to attempting to comply with a\nrange of new expectations from Peace Corps headquarters that included standards related to site\ndevelopment and site monitoring; improving monitoring and evaluation of Volunteer activities,\ndelivering standardized training sessions in a range of areas, taking a more standard approach to\nassessing trainee learning and Volunteer achievement of core expectations, and other initiatives.\n\nStaff reported that, while each of these initiatives and changes were well-intentioned and useful,\nit was very difficult to comply with all of them given their already high workloads. Staff was\nvisibly upset and emotional when describing their challenges related to satisfying all the work\nrequirements associated with the expectations described above.\n\nVolunteers also felt the effects of staff\xe2\x80\x99s increasing workload. While Volunteers were generally\npositive about the staff, several mentioned how overwhelmed they observed the staff to be:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe biggest weakness is\xe2\x80\x94it feels as if every person has more work than they can manage. They spend an\n awful lot of time doing reports for HQ. A lot of time doing the \xe2\x80\x98urgent\xe2\x80\x99 but not the important stuff. They\n didn\xe2\x80\x99t come to the talent show at end of training. If there is ever a time to bond with Volunteers, that is it.\n But they were slaving away in their offices.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cMaybe their workload is too much and prevents them from being helpful.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nStaff comments included:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe at post in general feel overwhelmed by all the stuff coming out and what we can absorb.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe tried to put everything in the calendar and there was not enough time. When you add safety and\n security and other things\xe2\x80\xa6There is a team in headquarters and they think of great things, but probably not a\n lot of communication and understanding of post realities. There are so many rules and things to do. We try\n to comply but we don\xe2\x80\x99t have time.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cReduce the management workload, please. It\xe2\x80\x99s too much. I love my job, but\xe2\x80\xa6it is unreasonable the\n amount of work that would be required to comply with everything. It just simply doesn\xe2\x80\x99t fit in the calendar.\n It is simply unrealistic. Of course we can be creative and find ways to do some of the things, but that is not\n sufficient.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nIn addition to new initiatives and guidance affecting all posts, the post was preparing to switch\nfrom two trainee inputs a year to one starting in March 2014. As a result of this shift, recent\nmonths had been particularly stressful for the environment project team and training staff. The\nstress levels staff expressed should somewhat abate when the next training class is finished with\nPST in May of 2014. Another cause of workload-induced stress among field staff at the post was\nthe lack of coordination by various offices at Peace Corps headquarters generating and pushing\nout new initiatives and guidance to the field. There was not an office or a process at headquarters\nthat ensured that new guidance and expectations sent to overseas field staff were paced so as not\nto overwhelm the capacity of field staff to respond and comply with them.\n\nHigh levels of stress can have negative physical and emotional effects. Staff turnover may\nincrease as people seek less stressful jobs elsewhere. Volunteers may be hesitant to approach\nstaff with questions or requests if they feel that staff is already too overworked.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 21\n\x0cHeadquarters staff reported being aware of the workload demands that had been placed on\noverseas staff and acknowledged it was an issue for all posts, not just Mexico. One senior\nmanager stated that \xe2\x80\x9cUltimately, [headquarters is] overloading posts. Particularly within the last\nthree years, we\xe2\x80\x99ve sent out a lot of mandates.\xe2\x80\x9d As this preliminary report was being produced,\nthe Office of Global Operations issued \xe2\x80\x9cStandard Operating Procedures for Headquarters\nCommunication with Regions and Posts\xe2\x80\x9d to improve how headquarters offices coordinate and\nmanage communication with field staff.\n\nBecause of this communication initiative, the additional flexibilities granted posts in the revised\nJanuary 2014 site development and site monitoring procedures, and the fact that staff in Mexico\nwere in the middle of a temporary transitional phase of particularly high workload, we are not\nissuing a recommendation. We intend this description of the workload issues in Mexico will\ninform decision-makers at Peace Corps headquarters of the importance of finding ways to more\ncarefully coordinate and manage the flow and pace of new initiatives and expectations for\noverseas staff.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 22\n\x0c LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS\nWE RECOMMEND:\n\n1. That the country director develop a plan for placing and supporting tech transfer and\nenvironment Volunteers in areas of greater need within Mexico.\n\n2. That the director of programming and training develop and implement a plan to prioritize and\nsupport ongoing Spanish language learning for Volunteers in Mexico.\n\n3. That the safety and security coordinator ensure that all Volunteer site locator forms contain\naccurate and complete information, and that the post has a process for verifying information on\nsite locator forms through site visits or other means.\n\n4. That the regional chief of operations and the director of programming and training encourage\napplicants to Peace Corps/Mexico to include information about their Master\xe2\x80\x99s International\nresearch interests in their pre-departure communications with their program manager.\n\n5. That the director of programming and training ensure that Volunteers receive timely feedback\nfrom program staff on their work reports.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 23\n\x0c APPENDIX A: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\nIn 1989, the Peace Corps OIG was established under the Inspector General Act of 1978 and is an\nindependent entity within the Peace Corps. The purpose of OIG is to prevent and detect fraud,\nwaste, abuse, and mismanagement and to promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency in\ngovernment. The Inspector General is under the general supervision of the Peace Corps Director\nand reports both to the Director and Congress.\n\nThe Evaluation Unit provides senior management with independent evaluations of all\nmanagement and operations of the Peace Corps, including overseas posts and domestic offices.\nOIG evaluators identify best practices and recommend program improvements to comply with\nPeace Corps policies.\n\nThe Evaluation Unit announced its intent to conduct an evaluation of the post on July 10, 2013.\nFor post evaluations, we use the following researchable questions to guide our work:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 To what extent has post developed and implemented programs to increase host country\n communities\xe2\x80\x99 capacity?\n \xef\x82\xb7 Does training prepare Volunteers for Peace Corps service?\n \xef\x82\xb7 Has the post provided adequate support and oversight to Volunteers?\n \xef\x82\xb7 Are post resources and management practices adequate for effective post operations?\n\nThe evaluation team conducted the preliminary research portion of the evaluation from July\nthrough September. Fieldwork was scheduled to begin at the end of September but was delayed\nfor one month due to the government shutdown in October. This research included review of\nagency documents provided by headquarters and post staff; interviews with management staff\nrepresenting: Inter-America and the Pacific Operations; Office of Global Operations; Office of\nVolunteer Recruitment and Selection; Peace Corps Response; Office of Safety and Security;\nOffice of General Counsel; Office of Victim Advocacy; OHS; and the Office of\nIntergovernmental Affairs and Partnerships.\n\nIn-country fieldwork occurred from November 4-22, and included interviews with post senior\nstaff in charge of programming, training, and support; the U.S. deputy chief of mission; the U.S.\nEmbassy\xe2\x80\x99s regional security officer; and host country government ministry officials. In addition,\nwe interviewed a stratified judgmental sample of 20 Volunteers (38 percent of Volunteers\nserving at the time of our visit) based on their length of service, site location, project focus,\ngender, age, and ethnicity.\n\nThis evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections, issued\nby the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The evidence, findings, and\nrecommendations provided in this report have been reviewed by agency stakeholders affected by\nthis review.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 24\n\x0c APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED\nAs part of this post evaluation, interviews were conducted with 20 Volunteers, 15 staff members\nin-country, 22 representatives from Peace Corps headquarters in Washington D.C. and the U.S.\nEmbassy in Mexico, and six representatives from Mexican counterpart agencies. In addition, we\ninterviewed nine other individuals in response to their requests to participate in the evaluation,\nincluding one returned Peace Corps/Mexico Volunteer, five Volunteers in service at the time of\nfieldwork who were not part of our formal sample, and three Volunteer counterparts in both the\ntech transfer and environment project sectors. Volunteer interviews were conducted using a\nstandardized interview questionnaire, and Volunteers were asked to rate many items on a five-\npoint scale (1 = not effective, 3 = neutral, 5 = very effective). The analysis of these ratings\nprovided a quantitative supplement to Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 comments, which were also analyzed. For the\npurposes of the data analysis, Volunteer ratings of \xe2\x80\x9c4\xe2\x80\x9d and above are considered favorable. In\naddition, 18 out of 20 Volunteer interviews occurred at the Volunteers\xe2\x80\x99 homes18, and we\ninspected 16 of these homes using post-defined site selection criteria. 19 The period of review for\na post evaluation is one full Volunteer cycle (typically 27 months).\n\nThe following table provides demographic information that represents the entire Volunteer\npopulation in Mexico; the Volunteer sample was selected to reflect these demographics.\n\n Table 3: Volunteer Demographic Data\n Percentage of\n Project\n Volunteers\n Environment 62%\n Tech Transfer 38%\n Percentage of\n Gender\n Volunteers\n Female 51%\n Male 49%\n Percentage of\n Age\n Volunteers\n 25 or younger 15%\n 26-29 19%\n 30-49 25%\n 50 and over 42%\n Source: Volunteer Information Database Application for Peace Corps Mexico.\n Note: Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.\n\n\n18\n One Volunteer was in the process of moving to Queretaro for her third year as a PCVL, and so was interviewed at\na caf\xc3\xa9 in Queretaro. Another Volunteer was in Queretaro rather than her work site, and so was interviewed at the\nPeace Corps office.\n19\n At the time of field work the 20 Volunteers in our sample included two married couples and one Volunteer in-\nbetween houses, bringing the number of Volunteer-occupied houses to 17. We inspected 16 of the 17 houses on site.\nBecause one Volunteer was interviewed at the Peace Corps office rather than at her work site, we relied on her\nanswers to our questions about the safety and security of her housing.\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 25\n\x0cAt the time of our field visit, the post had 23 staff positions. The post also employed temporary\nstaff/contractors to assist with PST. We interviewed 13 staff members as well as two former staff\nmembers who left in September 2013.\n\n Table 4: Interviews Conducted with Post Staff Members\n Position Status Interviewed\n Country Director USDH X\n Former Director of Programming and Training (departed USDH X\n September 2013)\n Director of Programming and Training USDH X\n Training Manager PSC* X\n Former Training Manager (departed September 2013) PSC X\n Peace Corps Medical Officer PSC X\n Director of Management and Operations FSN X\n Program Manager, Tech Transfer PSC X\n Program Manager, Environment PSC X\n Programming and Training Specialists (2) PSC X\n Safety and Security Coordinator PSC X\n Programming Assistant PSC X\n Medical Administrative Assistant and Sexual Assault PSC X\n Response Liaison\n Language and Host Family Coordinator PSC X\n Financial Assistant FSN\n Janitor (3) PSC\n Cashier FSN\n Information and Technology Specialist PSC\n General Services Coordinator PSC\n General Assistant PSC\n Administrative Clerk PSC\n Data as of November 2013. *PSC is personal services contractor; FSN is foreign service national.\n\nThirty-one additional interviews were conducted during the preliminary research phase of the\nevaluation, in-country fieldwork and follow-up work upon return to Peace Corps headquarters in\nWashington, D.C.\n\n Table 5: Interviews Conducted with PC/Headquarters Staff, Embassy\n Officials and Key Ministry Officials\n Position Organization\n Associate Director for Global Operations PC/headquarters/Office of\n Global Operations\n Placement Manager PC/headquarters/Office of\n Volunteer Recruitment and\n Selection\n Acting Regional Director PC/headquarters/ Inter-America\n and the Pacific Operations\n Chief of Operations PC/headquarters/ Inter-America\n and the Pacific Operations\n Chief of Programming and Training PC/headquarters/ Inter-America\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 26\n\x0c and the Pacific Operations\n Acting Chief Administrative Officer PC/headquarters/ Inter-America\n and the Pacific Operations\n Mexico Country Desk Officer and Acting Regional PC/headquarters/ Inter-America\n Security Advisor and the Pacific Operations\n Programming Specialist PC/headquarters/ Peace Corps\n Response\n Recruitment and Placement Specialist PC/headquarters/ Peace Corps\n Response\n Chief of Operations PC/headquarters/ Peace Corps\n Response\n Peace Corps Safety and Security Officer PC/headquarters/ Office of\n Safety and Security\n Associate General Counsel PC/headquarters/Office of\n General Counsel\n Director, Office of Victim Advocacy PC/headquarters/Office of\n Victim Advocacy\n Director, Office of Medical Services PC/headquarters/Office of\n Health Services\n Deputy Director, Counseling and Outreach Unit PC/headquarters/Office of\n Health Services\n Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Partnerships PC/headquarters/Office of\n Intergovernmental Affairs and\n Global Partnerships\n Deputy Chief of Mission US Embassy in Mexico\n Deputy Regional Security Officer US Embassy in Mexico\n Assistant Regional Security Officer US Embassy in Mexico\n Regional Security Officer U.S. Consulate General,\n Guadalajara in Mexico\n Counterparts of Technology Transfer Volunteers (2) Mexico\n Counterpart of Natural Resource Management Mexico\n Volunteer\n Director of International Cooperation National Commission of\n Protected Natural Areas\n (CONANP)\n Head of the International Affairs Unit Secretary of Environment and\n Natural Resources\n (SEMARNAT)\n Director of Cooperation National Forestry Commission\n (CONAFOR)\n Deputy Director of Technology Development and National Council of Science\n Innovation and Technology (CONACYT)\n Director of Institutional Development and Cooperation National Council of Science\n and Technology (CONACYT)\n Assistant Director of Bilateral and Multilateral National Council of Science\n Cooperation Strategies and Technology (CONACYT)\n Data as of November 22, 2013.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 27\n\x0c APPENDIX C: LIST OF ACRONYMS\n\n ACA Affordable Care Act\n CD Country Director\n CONACYT Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog\xc3\xada (National Council\n on Science and Technology)\n DPT Director of Programming and Training\n EAP Emergency Action Plan\n FY Fiscal Year\n GIS Geographic Information Specialist\n IAP Inter America and the Pacific\n MI Master\xe2\x80\x99s International\n OHS Office of Health Services\n OIG Office of Inspector General\n PCMO Peace Corps Medical Officer\n PCVL Peace Corps Volunteer Leader\n PST Pre-service Training\n SEMARNAT Secretar\xc3\xada de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales\n (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources)\n SLF Site Locator Form\n SSC Safety and Security Coordinator\n VAC Volunteer Advisory Committee\n VIDA Volunteer Information Database Application\n VRF Volunteer Report Form\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 28\n\x0c APPENDIX D: AGENCY\xe2\x80\x99S RESPONSE TO THE PRELIMINARY\n REPORT\n\n\n\n\nMemorandum\n\nTo: Kathy Buller, Inspector General\nThrough: Daljit K. Bains, Chief Compliance Officer\n\nFrom: Nina Favor, Acting Regional Director, IAP\n Daniel Evans, Country Director, Mexico\n\nDate: June 2, 2014\n\nCC: Carrie Hessler-Radelet, Acting Director\n Stacy Rhodes, Chief of Staff\n Joaquin Ferrao, Deputy Inspector General\n Jim O\xe2\x80\x99Keefe, Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations\n Jerry Black, Senior Evaluator\n Carlos Torres, Associate Director, Global Operations\n Brian Riley, Chief of Operations, IAP\n Amy Johnson, Chief of Programming & Training, IAP\n Summer Tucker, Acting Chief Administrative Officer, IAP\n Heather Zissler, Director of Programming and Training, Mexico\n Rodrigo Lopez, Director of Management and Operations, Mexico\n Kimberly Helm, Country Desk Officer, Mexico\n Patricia Barkle, Deputy Chief Compliance Officer\n Nancy Miller, Associate General Counsel\n\n\nSubject: Agency Response to the Preliminary Program Evaluation Report: Peace\n Corps/Mexico Project No. 13-Eval-05, March 2014\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 29\n\x0cEnclosed please find the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s response to the recommendations made by the Inspector\nGeneral for Peace Corps/M\xc3\xa9xico Project No. 13-Eval-05, as outlined in the Preliminary Report\nsent to the Agency on March 2014.\n\nThe Region concurs with all five recommendations provided by the OIG in its Preliminary\nProgram Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/M\xc3\xa9xico Project No. 13-Eval-05. Post has addressed\nand provided supporting documentation for all five of the recommendations.\n\nRecommendation 1: That the country director develop a plan for placing and supporting tech\ntransfer and environment Volunteers in areas of greater need within Mexico.\n\n Concur\n\n The IAP Region and PC/M\xc3\xa9xico (Post) appreciate the Congressional mandate to place\n Volunteers where they can fulfill local needs for trained manpower and meet the needs of\n the poorest areas.\n\n With more than 40% of Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s 120 million people living in poverty, Post defines areas\n of great need both geographically, i.e. which states and regions are the poorest overall,\n and by which segments of society are the poorest and most in need of assistance.\n\n As identified in the report, PC/M\xc3\xa9xico operates in country under specific agreements\n with two agencies - CONACYT and SEMARNAT - that govern Volunteer assignments,\n including location in the country. Post utilizes both traditional two year Volunteers and\n Response Volunteers in order to provide the specialized skills needed by counterpart\n agencies. The majority of Response Volunteers are placed with public technical\n universities that serve underprivileged students.\n\n From a geographical perspective, of the ten states identified by the OIG with high\n poverty indices, four of the states are off limits to Peace Corps due to security reasons.\n Post places a significant number of Volunteers in four of the states with high poverty\n rates: Puebla, Oaxaca, Tlaxcala, and Hidalgo. Post has requested additional travel funds\n for FY15 to conduct further site development in the following states identified by OIG:\n Chiapas and the Yucatan peninsula.\n\n Technology Transfer (TT) and CONACYT\n Many of Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s youth have migrated to cities in hopes of getting a better education\n and finding better opportunities for employment. Most live in urban areas and attend\n public universities. Over the last two years, Post has coordinated with CONACYT to\n develop Volunteer placements in public technical universities that align with CONACYT\n goals and serve underprivileged students. Post has placed 50% of TT Volunteers in\n Puebla and Hidalgo, both identified in the OIG Report with high rates of poverty.\n\n Environment and SEMARNAT\n A large percentage of Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s poor live in isolated rural areas with limited access to\n adequate services and schools. Over the past two years, a key success under the\n agreement with SEMARNAT has been their support to sponsor the placement of\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 30\n\x0c Volunteers with municipal governments and local organizations, expanding beyond the\n agency itself. This has allowed Post to place Volunteers in some of Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s poorest and\n most isolated communities to work more explicitly on environmental education.\n\n For both projects, Post provides Volunteers with training on working on community\n projects within the selected Cross-Sector Programming Priorities of Youth as Resources\n and Technology for Development.\n\n Post continues to balance poverty indices with security concerns, logistics of site visits,\n and travel costs for staff and Volunteers to determine the sites where Volunteers can\n serve productively and safely, while still addressing Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 mandate to help the\n people most in need.\n\n In summary, Post\xe2\x80\x99s continuing plan to place and support Volunteers in areas of greatest\n need includes the following components:\n 1. Post conducted a strategic Technology Transfer analysis in 2014 to identify potential\n partners within CONACYT. Post determined that public universities were the best\n partners identified.\n 2. Post has requested funding for travel in FY15 to explore further sites in Oaxaca and\n new sites in Chiapas and the Yucatan peninsula as noted above.\n 3. Post will continue to assign at least 50% of all Technology Transfer Volunteers to\n public technical universities that serve the most underprivileged students.\n\n Documents Submitted:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s IPBS for FY 2015 \xe2\x80\x93 2016: Pages 1, 4, 6 & 7\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mexico Tech Transfer Volunteers by University or CONACYT Center\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mexico Environment Volunteers by Site and State\n\n Status and Timeline for Completion: March 8, 2014\n\n\nRecommendation 2: That the director of programming and training develop and implement a plan\nto prioritize and support ongoing Spanish language learning for Volunteers in Mexico.\n\n Concur\n\n PC/M\xc3\xa9xico has already taken steps to provide ongoing language support for Volunteers\n in Mexico who do not reach the mandatory intermediate/low level before swearing-in. In\n October 2013 Post formed a Language Task Force based on the recommendations of the\n Volunteer Advisory Committee. This group of staff and Volunteers has implemented\n several Volunteer recommendations. Post now provides optional funding to encourage\n Volunteers at the intermediate/low level to continue tutoring to reach the intermediate-\n mid level. Volunteers are required to prepare an Independent Study Plan and their\n progress will be monitored monthly by the Language Coordinator. Language levels will\n be evaluated again during Early In-Service (ESIT). The revised policy was shared with\n Volunteers in the February edition of the Volunteer newsletter, the Pi\xc3\xb1ata.\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 31\n\x0c Furthermore, Post has identified ongoing support and strengthening of language training\n as a priority not solely for the Volunteers at the lower levels, but also for advanced\n Trainees/Volunteers. For the Q2 FY14 PST, Post has diversified language training for\n advanced language learners to make training more dynamic and applicable to their future\n sites. Moving forward, Post proposed in its FY15-16 Strategic Plan to lower the ratio of\n LCFs to Trainees as well as provide tutoring funds for all Volunteers at or below the\n intermediate-mid level.\n\n Documents Submitted:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s IPBS for FY 2015 \xe2\x80\x93 2016: Pages 2, 10 &13\n \xef\x82\xb7 La Pi\xc3\xb1ata, Peace Corps Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s Newsletter, February 2014 Edition (pg.11-12)\n\n Status and Timeline for Completion: March 8, 2014\n\n\n Recommendation 3: That the safety and security coordinator ensure that all Volunteer site\n locator forms contain accurate and complete information, and that the Post has a process\n for verifying information on site locator forms through site visits or other means.\n\n Concur\n Post recognizes the importance of maintaining up to date, accurate site locator forms\n (SLF) for all Volunteers. In order to collect all the required information, Post has\n implemented a series of actions to assure the SLFs are completed accurately before\n Volunteers arrive at their sites. For current Volunteers, additional measures are now in\n place to maintain accurate information in the event Volunteers move or change any other\n pertinent information and to verify the information on a regular basis.\n\n Prior to Volunteers arriving in their sites:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Trainees will be given site locator forms during PST by the SSM who will explain\n the form and reinforce Peace Corps\xe2\x80\x99 requirement that the information be accurate\n and up to date.\n \xef\x82\xb7 During visits to their future sites, Trainees will be required to complete the form\n and determine the GPS coordinates of their residences\n \xef\x82\xb7 Prior to being sworn-in, all Trainees must have submitted their completed site\n locator forms. The SSM will review the forms and work with all the Trainees to\n assure the SLFs are complete and accurate.\n\n After Volunteers arrive at their sites:\n \xef\x82\xb7 SSM/staff will review the SLF with all Volunteers at Early IST (at the three\n month mark of service), during site visits, and when a Volunteer changes housing\n location/information.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Every January the SSM will send all Volunteers a PDF version of their SLF. All\n Volunteers will be required to review the information and either confirm it is\n accurate or provide corrections to their data as needed. SSM will verify that the\n GPS coordinates and other information are correct and adequate to locate\n Volunteers in the event of an emergency. SSM will update VIDA.\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 32\n\x0c \xef\x82\xb7 The SSM will update Post\xe2\x80\x99s Google Earth map twice a year (end of February and\n end of September) to include the latest information on Volunteers throughout the\n country. Post\xe2\x80\x99s SSM has tested Google Earth maps and determined that it\n provides very accurate GPS information. Updated Google Earth maps will be\n shared with the RSO and Regional RSO in Mexico City and Guadalajara, as well\n as with the Peace Corps Safety & Security Officer (PCSSO) and Regional\n Security Advisor (RSA).\n\n The IAP region is working in collaboration with the Office of Safety and Security, the\n Office of Global Operations and the Compliance Office to establish new procedural\n guidelines for locating Volunteers. The Region believes the existing guidance and\n resources are outdated, and innovative strategies can be better leveraged to reach our\n objectives. A working group has been formed for the purpose of drafting new guidance\n and options for moving forward are being evaluated. The working group anticipates that\n guidance will be rolled out no later than May, 2015.\n\n Documents Submitted:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Policy for Maintaining Accurate Site Locator Forms\n \xef\x82\xb7 Updated Site Locator Form\n\n Status and Timeline for Completion: May 15, 2014\n\n\n\nRecommendation 4: That the regional chief of operations and the director of\nprogramming and training encourage applicants to Peace Corps/Mexico to\ninclude information about their Master\xe2\x80\x99s International research interests in\ntheir pre-departure communications with their program manager.\n\n\n Concur\n\n PC/Mexico is extremely supportive of the Master\xe2\x80\x99s International program and those\n students that work on projects at Post. Post follows the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s approach that the\n primary responsibility of MI Volunteers is to their assigned project and community.\n\n Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s selection and invitation process is different than the typical process in Peace\n Corps since sites are assigned prior to arrival and, sometimes, even before a candidate is\n invited to serve in Mexico. The unique process is due to the MOUs with CONACYT and\n SEMARNAT which support issuing specific visas for Volunteers.\n The selection and invitation process varies slightly depending on the type of assignment.\n Region/Post will implement and execute the strategies below in order to more effectively\n capture Master\xe2\x80\x99s International Invitees\xe2\x80\x99 research interests before site assignment by Post.\n\n\n Both Projects\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 33\n\x0c Post and Region will include messaging in all Job Specific Requirements (JSRs) that\n requires MI candidates to communicate research interests during the selection and\n invitation process. JSRs serve as the primary mechanism for documenting Post\xe2\x80\x99s request\n for Volunteers to Region, as well as to the recruiting and placement offices of Volunteer\n Recruitment & Selection (VRS). Messaging will be placed under Master\xe2\x80\x99s International\n Information in the Master\xe2\x80\x99s International comments section. Region will work with VRS\n to enhance communication to prospective/current MI candidates regarding this\n information.\n\n Technology Transfer Project (TT)\n Prospective TT candidates are interviewed by Post prior to invitation to determine if\n qualifications meet the project and/or specific site assignment. Post will ask MI\n candidates during the interview for research interests in order to determine potential\n alignment between the TT project, the potential sites, and the candidate\xe2\x80\x99s research\n interests.\n\n Environment Project\n Environment assignments focus on improving natural resource management (AA 199)\n and environmental education (AA 104), each of which has a slightly different invitation\n and selection process.\n\n For Natural Resource Management (NRM) candidates, Post and project partners review a\n candidate\xe2\x80\x99s resume and responses to specific questionnaire prior to the candidate\xe2\x80\x99s\n invitation and site selection. Post has revised the questionnaire to include a request for the\n research interests of MI candidates.\n\n The Environmental Education candidates are invited to serve in Mexico through the\n standard invitation process. MI candidates will be reminded to highlight their research\n interests in the Aspiration Statement in the close of invitation email sent by the Country\n Desk Officer approximately 4 months prior to departure.\n\n Documents Submitted:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Updated JSRs\n \xef\x82\xb7 Updated Technology Transfer interview questions\n \xef\x82\xb7 Updated NRM questionnaire\n \xef\x82\xb7 Updated Close of invitation email template from CDO\n\nStatus and Timeline for Completion: May 23, 2014\n\n\nRecommendation 5: That the director of programming and training ensure that Volunteers\nreceive timely feedback from program staff on their work reports.\n\n Concur\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 34\n\x0c Post agrees that staff feedback on Volunteer work reports is an important component of\n providing high quality Volunteer support and thus included a performance goal in the\n FY15-16 IPBS Strategic Plan.\n\n As noted in the IG report, the new DPT was aware of the lack of timely feedback on\n work reports in the past and had already begun taking measures to ensure that Volunteers\n receive timely and quality feedback from programming staff on their Volunteer Report\n Forms (VRFs).\n\n Post updated the policy for providing feedback on work reports in December 2013 and\n shared this policy with all currently serving Volunteers as well as the most recent training\n class. In summary, Programming staff have 30 days to provide written feedback on\n reports. In instances where feedback cannot be provided within 30 days, staff may have\n an extension of 15 days, upon informing Volunteers that feedback will be late.\n\n The DPT will monitor compliance with this policy through the VRT dashboard feature\n that shows progress on VRF feedback completed and sent to Volunteers.\n\n Documents Submitted:\n \xef\x82\xb7 Mexico\xe2\x80\x99s IPBS for FY 2015 \xe2\x80\x93 2016: Pages 3 & 14\n \xef\x82\xb7 Policy on Providing Volunteers Written Feedback on Their Volunteer Report\n Forms\n \xef\x82\xb7 Email sent to inform Volunteers of new VRF Feedback Policy\n\n Status and Timeline for Completion: May 19, 2014\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 35\n\x0c APPENDIX E: OIG COMMENTS\nManagement concurred with all five recommendations. All five recommendations remain open.\nIn its response, management described actions it is taking or intends to take to address the issues\nthat prompted each of our recommendations. OIG will review and consider closing the\nrecommendations when the documentation reflected in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s response to the preliminary\nreport is received.\n\nWe wish to note that in closing recommendations, we are not certifying that the agency has taken\nthese actions or that we have reviewed their effect. Certifying compliance and verifying\neffectiveness are management\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities. However, when we feel it is warranted, we may\nconduct a follow-up review to confirm that action has been taken and to evaluate the impact.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 36\n\x0c APPENDIX F: PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPLETION AND\n OIG CONTACT\nPROGRAM This program evaluation was conducted under the\nEVALUATION direction of Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations\n Jim O\xe2\x80\x99Keefe, by Senior Evaluator Jerry Black. Additional\nCOMPLETION contributions were made by Kaitlyn Large.\n\n\n\n\n Jim O\xe2\x80\x99Keefe\n Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations\n\n\n\nOIG CONTACT Following issuance of the final report, a stakeholder\n satisfaction survey will be distributed to agency\n stakeholders. If you wish to comment on the quality or\n usefulness of this report to help us improve our products,\n please contact Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations\n Jim O\xe2\x80\x99Keefe and at jokeefe@peacecorps.gov, or\n 202.692.2904.\n\n\n\n\nFinal Program Evaluation Report: Peace Corps/Mexico 37\n\x0c Help Promote the Integrity, Efficiency, and\n Effectiveness of the Peace Corps\n Anyone knowing of wasteful practices, abuse, mismanagement,\n fraud, or unlawful activity involving Peace Corps programs or\npersonnel should contact the Office of Inspector General. Reports or\n complaints can also be made anonymously.\n\n\n\n\n Contact OIG\n\n Reporting Hotline:\n U.S./International: 202.692.2915\n Toll-Free (U.S. only): 800.233.5874\n\n Email: OIG@peacecorps.gov\n Online Reporting Tool: PeaceCorps.gov/OIG/ContactOIG\n\n Mail: Peace Corps Office of Inspector General\n P.O. Box 57129\n Washington, D.C. 20037-7129\n\n\n\n For General Information:\n Main Office: 202.692.2900\n Website: peacecorps.gov/OIG\n Twitter: twitter.com/PCOIG\n\x0c"