Table of Contents Part I – Executive Summary Part II – Detailed Observations and Options • Project Overview • Overall Option Analysis • Findings, Observations, and Options • Organizational Structure • Business Processes • Human Capital • Technology Part III – Appendices • Appendix A: Project Timeline • Appendix B: Current OAS Organizational Structure • Appendix C: Member State Delegation Meetings • Appendix D: Organizational Unit Meetings • Appendix E: Facilitated Session Participants • Appendix F: Current OAS Grade and Salary Structure and Description of United Nations Compensation System • Appendix G: OAS Personnel Register (June 2003) with detailed OAS demographics • Appendix H: OAS Performance Appraisal Form • Appendix I: Detailed Deloitte Research Findings Related to OAS Human Capital Issues • Appendix J: Series of Charts Reflecting Deloitte Analyses of OAS Human Capital Issues • Appendix K: Executive Order No. 01-4, Performance Contract (CPR) Rules

2003 Oct 2003 to May 2004 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct STEPS Ongoing: Project Management & Communications 1. Project Planning 2. Gathering Data 3. Conducting Analyses 4. Validating Results 5. Developing Options 6. Presenting Findings 1 2 1 Briefing to the senior officials of the General Secretariat 2 Briefing to the Permanent Council and its Committee on Administrative Matters during the March to May time frame APPENDIXA: Project Overview - Timeline

APPENDIXB: Current OAS Organizational Structure

APPENDIX B: Current OAS Organizational Structure (Cont.)

APPENDIXC: Member State Delegation Meetings

APPENDIXD: Organizational Unit Meetings

APPENDIX D: Organizational Unit Meetings (Cont.)

APPENDIX E: Facilitated Session Participants

APPENDIX E: Facilitated Session Participants (Cont.)

APPENDIX F Current OAS Grade and Salary Structure Description of UN Compensation System (to open below: right click on the link and select from the menu “open hyperlink”) http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2003/cp12017e-3a.xls http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2003/cp12017e-3b.pdf

APPENDIX G OAS Personnel Register (June, 2003) with Detailed OAS Demographics (to open below: right click on the link and select from the menu “open hyperlink”) http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2003/cp12017e-3c.pdf

APPENDIX H OAS Personnel Appraisal Form (to open below: right click on the link and select from the menu “open hyperlink”) http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2003/cp12017e-3d.doc

APPENDIX I Detailed Deloitte Research Findings Related to OAS Human Capital Issues

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • COMPENSATION • General Compensation Analysis • Compensation expenditures as a percentage of budget are, on average, lower at the OAS than at comparable organizations. Compensation costs, funded through Object 1 of the budget, represent approximately 52% of the total budget of the OAS. In comparison, compensation costs average 63% of the budget for our peer group. These costs are illustrated in Chart I in APPENDIX J. • Budgeting for compensation costs at the OAS is extremely difficult due to unpredictably wide fluctuations in the annual adjustment to the salary structure and post adjustment. Increases to the OAS professional wage rates, when combining both the salary structure and the post adjustment, have ranged from 1.45 percent to 9.6 percent over the last five years. During this same period the average increase for the peer group has ranged from 3.05 to 4.24 percent. These variations are illustrated in Chart III in APPENDIX J. • The average annual increase to the OAS salary structure and post adjustment for professionals is 1.24 percent higher than the peer group over the past 5 years. In contrast, the average pay structure increase for the general service staff is .85 percent below the average for the peer group. This comparison is illustrated in Chart III in APPENDIX J.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • The organizations in our study use different benchmarks for maintaining their salary structures. The multilateral organizations in our study benchmark their salary structures against local organizations in both the public and private sector. PAHO, which develops the general service salary structure used by OAS, benchmarks local public and private organizations. In developing and maintaining the salary structure for professionals, the U.N. benchmarks only the civil service in Washington, DC. Both the OAS and PAHO use the professional structure developed by the U.N. • All of the multilateral organizations in our study (including PAHO and the OAS) set their salary ranges above the median rates of the organizations they benchmark. Two of our benchmark organizations set the midpoint of their salary structures equal to the 75th percentile of the firms they benchmark. PAHO and the OAS, through the use of the U.N. common system, set their salary structures for professionals 10% to 20% above the U.S. Federal Government. The salary structure for general service staff parallels some of the best paying organizations in the local marketplace. Chart IV in APPENDIX J illustrates the different approaches by the organizations in our study. • The organizations in our study also use different approaches to administering pay increases. The OAS grants a one-step pay increase to all staff who have been in their grade for a minimum of one year, or two years for “long-service” personnel. Although performance is supposed to be a factor in granting pay increases at the OAS, a staff member will receive an increase whether or not they have received a performance evaluation. In contrast, all of the other organizations in our study have a strong link between pay administration and job performance. In these “merit-based pay systems,” the amount of an employee’s pay increase is determined by the employee’s final performance rating.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • There is no form of bonus or incentive pay at the OAS. All of the other organizations within our study provide bonuses or other forms of incentive pay in addition to base pay. • 25% percent of the general service staff and 20% of the professional staff at OAS are in the last step of their grade. 77% of these individuals are members of the career service. Nearly half of the organization’s 217 career service staff are in the last step of their pay grade. About 33% of the professional staff is in the first or second step of their grade. • 52 career service employees who are in the last step of their grade are receiving a salary supplement that averages approximately $3,800 dollars per year. This supplement is provided to cover the gap between the maximum pay of their grade and the salary they were earning before their position was reclassified downward during the last Secretariat-wide post audit in 1995. • Salary Analysis by Nationality • When comparing the wages of groups with different citizenship status, wages are fairly comparable when examined on a grade by grade basis. The overall average wage is comparable between U.S. Citizens and G-4 Visa Holders, yet lower for Permanent Residents. Approximately 60% of Permanent Residents are employed in general service positions, while nearly 68% of U.S. Citizens and G-4 Visa Holders are employed in professional positions. Most of the differences in pay between the groups is a result of how employees within each appointment type are clustered across the pay ranges. See Chart V at APPENDIX J.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • Salary Analysis by Gender • Females assigned to Director level posts are paid comparably to males, and for general service posts females are earning approximately 5% more than males. However, for professional posts, females earn approximately 10% less than males. Part of this disparity may be explained by the fact that males occupy nearly three times as many P-5 level posts than females. A comparison of pay by gender is illustrated in Chart VI at APPENDIX J.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • BENEFITS • The OAS offers a full range of benefits to its employees. Eligibility for benefits is determined by type of appointment. A listing of benefits offered by the OAS is provided in Chart VII in APPENDIX J. • Generally speaking, the benefits offered to OAS' employees are comparable to those offered by the peer group. See Chart VIII in APPENDIX J for a list of benefits offered by each of the organizations in our study. • All organizations in the study offer medical insurance, and most offer multiple plans to choose from, such as an HMO and a PPO. The UN offers four plans, the Federal Government three, the OAS two, and the IADB and World Bank one. In the private sector two or more plans are commonly offered. Deductible levels, coinsurance, and office visit copayments are comparable across the group. • All of the organizations offer some sort of dental coverage. The PPO dental plan, which has a network of participating dentists, is the most commonly offered plan among the group and is the plan offered by the OAS. Other plan types offered include an indemnity, (where you can go to any dentist) or a supplementary plan. Across the peer group there is some variation with respect to deductibles, coinsurance, and orthodontia benefits. • All of the organizations in the study offer a two-tiered prescription drug plan. The prescription drug benefit varies depending on the type of medical plan offered (e.g., HMO, PPO, POS). The copays for prescriptions under the OAS plan are $10 for generic and $12 for name brand drugs. Copays for the other organizations range from $0 to $20 for generic and $10 to $40 for brand. All organizations appear to offer mail order coverage. The mail order copays range from $0 to $35.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • All of the peers offer some type of life insurance as an employer-paid benefit (except for the U.S. Government where the employee pays the full benefit). The OAS' life insurance plan offers a higher face value than plans offered by the peer group. Face amounts can be examined by referring to Chart VIII in APPENDIX J. • OAS' retirement benefits are similar when compared to those of their peers. The OAS, UN, and the IADB offer a defined benefit plan only. The U.S. Government offers both a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan. The private sector typically offers only a defined contribution plan. The defined benefit plans of the peer group have similar age and service requirements, and the plan benefits are based on a length of service and final average pay. The U.S. Government appears to have the richest formula followed by the IADB, OAS and United Nations. • There is some variation among the benchmark group in benefits offered based on appointment. The United Nations offers medical benefits for staff members with appointments of one year or longer with limited coverage for those with appointments of less than one year. The IADB offers medical benefits for staff members with contracts of 6 months or longer. The Federal Government does not appear to differentiate based on appointment. Chart IX in APPENDIX J illustrates the benefits available to OAS employees by type of appointment. • Overall, OAS, UN, and IADB employees contribute 33% towards the cost of medical insurance. However, the method used to calculate employee contributions is notably different. Most employers base employee contributions on a flat dollar amount or on a percent of the cost of the premium. In contrast, the OAS bases employee contributions on a percent of the employee’s salary.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • OAS’ overall costs for medical and prescription insurance are lower than industry averages in recent years. Further, OAS‘ overall cost increases for medical insurance and prescription drugs are significantly lower than industry averages. Charts X and XI in APPENDIX J illustrate current costs and the trends in cost increases among firms in the peer group. • OAS’ cost of benefits as a percentage of salary (benefit load) is approximately 24%. In comparison, the benefit load for IADB is approximately 25%, and for the U.S. Government and private industry it runs nearly 19% and 18%, respectively. See Chart XII in APPENDIX J for a comparison of the benefit load level across the peer group. • OAS’ time off policy provides between 21 and 30 vacation days based on length of service, up to 6 months of sick leave for career employees, and 11 holidays. All peers offer a time-off plan, which combines vacation, sick, personal days, and holidays into one leave account. Total vacation days of the peers range from 13 days to 30 days. The U.S. Government offers 13 days of sick leave per year to all employees and 13-26 days of vacation depending on length of service. The UN and IADB offer the same number of days to all employees regardless of length of service. Only the IADB offers personal days in addition to vacation days. Number of holidays range from 9 days to 11 days. Sick days showed the most variation among organizations ranging from 15 days to 6 months depending on class of employment. IADB and UN offer up to 6 months of sick time to help cover disability.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • Most organizations offer special benefits to expatriates. Often these benefits are dependent on the grade or category of employees. OAS' benefits for employees on different kinds of appointments are similar when compared to the benchmark group. Chart XIII in APPENDIX J provides a comparison of the expatriate benefits offered by OAS compared to the benchmark group. OAS spent nearly $1.3M to repatriate internationally recruited staff in 2000 and 2001, and $460,000 for home leave. The costs for repatriation and home leave during 2001 are illustrated by grade level in Chart VII in APPENDIX J.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • JOB CLASSIFICATION • In 1995, the OAS adopted the job classification standards used by the UN. These standards employ a highly structured point-factor system that measures the relative value of jobs by assigning points to each of the primary factors of work which make up the job. The accumulated points for all factors determine the grade. Point-factoring systems are universally recognized as one of the most accurate and defendable job classification systems available. • While the UN and the OAS use the same classification standards, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the standards are applied consistently across the two organizations. Although the point factor method should yield consistent results, the OAS’ reliance on UN pay scales makes it essential that both organizations slot positions equivalently. Both organizations claim that the other has a tendency to grade similar positions higher than they do. • AG/RES. 1275 XXIV-0/94 requires that the Secretary General budget for an audit of all posts, to be conducted at least once every four to six years. However, due to budget constraints, the last Secretariat-wide post audit was completed in 1995. Post audits are currently conducted only when requested by a staff member or their supervisor, or when a new vacancy is created. It has been estimated that a Secretariat-wide audit today would cost approximately $600,000, or about $100,000 a year for six years, yet the approved budget (Subprogram 90F) was $32,500 for fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003, and is estimated to be approved at $16,000 for FY 2004.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • 163 posts financed through the regular fund were audited between 2000 and 2002. As a result of the audits, 61 posts were upgraded and 1 was downgraded. The other 101 were unchanged. Those posts that were upgraded represented approximately 3% of the total number of posts that were occupied during this period. Chart XIV in APPENDIX J gives an accounting of post audit activity between 1996 and 2002. • In 2002, 29 posts occupied by females were audited and 13 were reclassified. During the same period 22 posts occupied by males were audited and 7 were reclassified. Through March 21, 2003, 34 posts occupied by females were audited and 15 were reclassified. During this period 18 posts occupied by males were audited and 8 were reclassified. Additional statistics regarding post audits by gender is provided in Chart XV in APPENDIX J. • Staff members spend an average of 5 years in their post before it is reclassified, based on reclassifications over the past 2 years. Chart XVI in APPENDIX J provides a summary, for each grade level, of time spent in grade prior to reclassification. Chart XVII provides a summary of the average length of time that current staff members have been in their current grade. • Job titles for OAS staff have not been reviewed since moving to parity in 1995. Today there are over 166 different job titles recorded in the OAS human resource information system.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • STAFFING AND RECRUITMENT • In general, recruiting volume at OAS is very low. Between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002, 1 professional and 3 general services positions were filled by external candidates, while 27 professional and 8 general services positions were filled with internal candidates. • Employee turnover, while higher than some organizations in our study, is also low. As a result, attrition does not drive a lot of staffing activity. Chart XX in APPENDIX J provides turnover data for some of the organizations in our study. • The recruiting process is highly structured and has multiple steps that may take from 4 to 6 months to complete. As a result, a vacant position may be filled during the recruiting process with an interim hire on a short-term contract. This helps to ensure that the work gets done and prevents the unit from losing the position or having it frozen. Jobs can be filled under a short-term contract as quickly as within 2 days if all of the correct documentation is provided. • While the number of mandates has increased steadily over the past several years, the number of positions approved in the regular fund of the budget has steadily declined. Chart XVIII in APPENDIX J shows the number of positions approved in the budget between 1996 and 2003. • The OAS is counterbalancing the effects of a frozen regular fund budget by increasing the use of specific funds to pay for staff. The percent of staff allocated to other funds more than doubled between 1999 and 2002. Chart XIX in APPENDIX J illustrates the growing trend in the use of other funds to pay for staff.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • CPR Rules --The most recent rules governing the use of CPRs are contained in Executive Order 01-4, Performance Contracts Rules, issued in May 2001. A procedure is in place for hiring CPRs, with checks and balances built in to control the process. These checks and balances include a performance contract which identifies CPR candidates that have family relationships that conflict with the rules; the requirement that a department head sign a requisition indicating that funds are available prior to hiring a CPR, a resume review by the procurement department; and a DHRS review of any requests to issue time-based contracts for periods that exceed six consecutive months in duration. Further, contracts over $50,000 require review by the legal department, and contracts over $70,000 must go out for competition. A copy of Executive Order 01-4 is attached at APPENDIX K, as is a copy of a blank performance contract. • Use of CPRs --The organization uses a substantial number of CPR’s to provide a wide range of services. In 2002, 1188 purchase orders for CPRs were processed at a total cost of $14,698,405. 21% of this cost was paid by regular funds, and the remaining 79% was paid by specific and other funds. For the period between January and September of 2003 the organization issued 935 purchase orders for CPRs at a total cost of $12,348,032. 23% of the cost was paid by regular funds, and the remaining 77% percent was paid by specific and other funds. Chart II at APPENDIX J shows the number of CPRs requested by funding source. The majority of CPRs are hired to work on specific projects and to perform specific functions on a short-term basis. It does appear, however, that approximately 30% (our best estimate) of CPRs may be performing staff work that would normally be assigned to term contract or career staff.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • CPR Management -- The organization appears to be making progress towards better managing the CPR hiring process. In addition to the controls mentioned above, a new training program was recently rolled out to educate managers on the policies and procedures for hiring CPRs. The Oracle system has helped expedite request processing and broadened reporting capabilities. Despite this progress, there is still some resistance to following the guidelines. Primary responsibility for managing and monitoring the CPR program resides with the Office of Procurement.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT • Article 36 of the General Standards calls for the Secretary General to issue regulations for a performance evaluation system pursuant to Article 120 of the Charter. The rules regarding performance appraisals are outlined in Rule 105.9 of the Staff Rules. Administrative Memorandum Number 92, Guidelines on Conducting Performance Evaluations, was issued in April of 2000 and provides a comprehensive overview of the evaluation process and instructions for following the process. • The performance evaluation process applies to all staff members including career staff, trust holders, and staff on long- and short-term contracts of 6 months or more. CPRs, temporary support personnel, associates, and local professionals do not receive performance evaluations. • The number of evaluations completed for eligible staff has trended downward over the past few years. As of May 2003, evaluations had been completed for only 1/3 of the eligible staff. In 2001, approximately 43 percent of eligible staff members received an evaluation. There are no negative consequences for supervisors who fail to give appraisals of their staff. This is likely a primary reason that such a large number of employees do not receive an appraisal. • In 2002 a Staff Incentives Awards Committee (SIAC) was formed to recognize and reward staff members who have had outstanding performance. Three award ceremonies have been held since 1999, and each year 3 to 4 percent of the staff have received an outstanding performance award. Although Staff Rule 105.10 does permit cash incentive awards for outstanding performance, cash awards are not currently being distributed.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • The Performance Evaluation Review Committee (PERC) reviews the evaluations of unsatisfactory performers to ensure that the review is appropriate. An employee who disputes their performance review may request a hearing before the Administrative Tribunal or, in lieu of the hearing, a review by the PERC. A ruling by the PERC has the same legal significance as a final decision by the SG in the Reconsideration Process. • According to the Staff Rules, if job performance is unsatisfactory a step increase will be postponed pending a follow-up evaluation three months later. An individual who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings will be subject to termination. The 2001-2002 evaluation cycle was the first year that individuals who received an unsatisfactory rating did not receive step increase. 3 employees out of the 248 that received an appraisal were given a poor rating during that cycle. • The absence of an appraisal does not impact a staff members eligibility to receive a step-increase nor does it impact their eligibility to have their post evaluated for possible reclassification. • The design of the current performance appraisal form is overly simplistic, and competencies that are evaluated can’t be tied to the organizations mission and objectives. Recently, the DHRS and the Staff Association began collaborating on exploring ways to improve the appraisal program. The staff association recently circulated an employee survey soliciting feedback on the evaluation process.

Detailed Research Findings for Human Capital • TRAINING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT • Staff Rule 105.8 states that the General Secretariat shall maintain a program for the training of its staff to service the evolving needs of the Organization through the development of knowledge and skills, the improvement of performance, and the promotion of career advancement. In accordance with Article 18(a)(vi) of the General Standards, preferential treatment in training programs shall be given to members of the career service. • Despite recognizing the importance of training and development, the organization provides very little resources for this task. The budget for training has shrunk considerably over the years from $200,000 in 1999 to $51,000 currently. The current budget would provide less than $90 in training for every position budgeted under the regular fund. The budget allocated for training is substantially higher in comparable organizations, ranging from $500 to several thousand dollars per employee. • In 2001 the training and tuition reimbursement budgets were combined, and today the budget is used exclusively for tuition assistance. Employees may receive up to $1,000 per year in tuition assistance for courses taken at accredited educational institutions. • The Organization does not provide an orientation class for new employees, though there has been some talk of implementing one.

APPENDIX J Charts Reflecting Deloitte Analyses of OAS Human Capital Issues

Chart I: Cash Compensation Expenses as a Percent of Budget Notes: Figures include basic salary, post adjustment, and applicable allowances paid through Object 1 of the program budget. Expenses for independent consultants (CPRs) are not included.

Chart II: CPR Expenditures CPR Expenditures FY 2002 CPR Expenditures January – September2003

Chart III: Comparison of Pay Scales Increases Avg. Annual Salary Structure Adjustments Notes: 1) OAS salary structure increases for Professionals include a post adjustments, which do not apply to the General Services scale. 2) The average for the General Services category is a four-year average. The scale for 2003-2004 has not yet been released by the UN. 3) U.S. Government figures represent Wash. D.C. annual comparability and locality pay increases, and do not include step increases. 4) Private sector figures represent average salary structure adjustments for private sector firms in the Wash. D.C. area. Does not include merit increases. 5) PAHO and OAS incorporate the same pay structure adjustments developed by the ICSC for the UN.

Chart IV: Approaches Used to Develop Salary Structures Notes: Time-based system – Pay increases are granted at predetermined intervals, following a period of time in the job. Merit-based system – Pay increases are determined by an employees job performance.

Chart V: Salary Comparison Based on Citizenship U.S. Citizen Perm. Res. G-4 Visa • Notes: • Figures include basic salaries for all staff, and post adjustments for professional staff. • Allowances, benefits, and other collateral payments are not included • Data is for staff assigned to the headquarters duty station only, and includes only positions that are incorporated into the organizations’ pay structures. • The total average pay is a weighted average of the count and average pay.

Chart VI: Average Compensation by Gender Notes: Comparison is for staff assigned to the headquarters. For the purposes of this chart, the average annual salary represents the average basic salary plus post adjustment. Compensation for the Secretary General, Assistant Secretary General, and Executive Secretaries is excluded from the chart.

Chart VII: Costs for Repatriation and Home Leave Notes: All costs presented here were paid for through the regular fund. * Former professional staff reclassified to general services yet retained home leave benefits.

Chart VIII: Benefits Offered by Organization Notes: 1) There are 4 basic types of Medical Plans: HMO = Health Maintenance Organization; POS = Point of Service; PPO = Preferred Provider, and Indemnity (reimbursement). The “managed care” plans -- HMO, POS, and PPO -- are typically the least expensive, in that order. Indemnity plans are typically the most expensive but provide employees the most flexibility. 2) STD = Short Term Disability (typically < 6 months) and LTD = Long Term Disability (typically > 6 months).

Chart IX: Benefits Offered by Type of Appointment • g. Six months of continuous services carries with it right to annual leave • Applicable only if the staff member has been recruited internationally for a period longer than two years and if it is expected that the staff member will continue in service with the General Secretariat for at least six months after returning home. • Benefit acquired after completion of one year of service • Contracts of one year or more or short-term contracts with one year of continuous service • Benefits granted to staff members in grades P1 and above and those in any grade who have been recruited internationally if on board before April 1, 2003 • Benefits granted to staff members in grades P1 and above and those in any grade who have been recruited before April 1, 2002 • m. Limited to persons who were on board by December 31, 1970. a. Benefits will be one half of those that correspond to fixed contracts of the same duration. b. Benefits granted to staff members in grades P1 and above who fulfill the requirements of the Rule - Away from Headquarters. c. Benefits granted to staff in grades G1 through G7 who meet the requirements of the Staff Rules. d. Benefits granted to staff members in Grades P1 and above and those in any grade who have been recruited internationally if on board before April,1 2003. Mandatory for those on board after April 1, 2003. e. Benefits granted to staff members in grades P1 and above who fulfill the requirements of the Rule. f. Occurs when transportation of personal effects has been granted away from headquarters

Chart X: Comparison of Medical Insurance and Prescription Drug Costs Per Capita Cost to Employer Notes: 1. Data represent medical, prescription, and administrative costs incurred by employers on a per employee basis. 2. Industry data include a wide range of public-sector and private-sector employers in Wash. D.C. and across the United States. 3. OAS data include medical, prescription, and administrative fees for the Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO, which covers 95% of OAS staff. 4. 2003 OAS costs projected based on January – June 2003 claims plus administrative costs. D.C. and national average costs calculated by applying 2003 trend factor to 2002 average cost. 5. Sources for Wash. D.C. and Industry data: Hewitt annual survey of public-sector and private-sector employers.

Chart XI: Comparison of Cost Increases for Medical Insurance and Prescription Drugs Percentage Increase Notes: 1. Data represent increases from prior year in medical, prescription, and administrative costs. 2. Industry data include a wide range of public-sector and private-sector employers in Wash. D.C. and across the United States. 3. OAS data include medical, prescription, and administrative fees for the Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO which covers 95% of OAS staff. OAS data for 2003 as of 5-1-03. 4. Sources for Wash. D.C. and Industry data: Hewitt, Mercer and AON annual surveys of public-sector and private-sector employers. 5. OAS made several plan design modifications in November of 2002, including an increase in office visit copay, addition of an inpatient hospital copay and increase in brand prescription drug copay. This could explain the lower increase when compared to the industry.

Chart XII: Cost of Benefits as a Percent of Salary Info. Not Avail. Info. Not Avail. Notes: 1. Disability data is not available for OAS, IADB, the U.S. Government. Retirement Information is not available for IADB. 2. Industry data include a wide range of public-sector and private-sector employers in Wash. D.C. and across the United States. 3. Sources for Industry data: 2003 Hay Benefits Survey

Chart XIII: Expatriate Benefits

Chart XIV: Classification Audit Statistics by Gender FEMALE STAFF MEMBERS RECLASSIFIED

Chart XV: Classification Audit Activity 1996-2002 Notes: The number of posts represents the number of posts occupied, not the number of posts authorized. The data for 1996 through 1999 includes posts financed through all funds. The data for 2000 through 2002 represents only posts in the regular fund.

Chart XVI: Time Spent in Grade Prior to Reclassification Notes: This is a sample of positions that were reclassified during the last two years.

Chart XVII: Average Period of Time That Current Staff Members Have Spent in Their Current Grade

Table of Contents