The Foreign Service Journal, April 2013

48 APRIL 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL AFSA NEWS USAID Survey continued from page 45 agencies still exist, which the USAID leadership has yet to resolve: full language training for spouses and partners at the Foreign Service Institute; lower Washington per diem rates; unequal lodging arrangements while training in Washington; ineligibility for FSI day-care services; and some overseas incentives. However, the most serious problem is low entry-level salaries, which, after a personal appeal to the Administrator, the agency has finally indicated it will look into. Other high priorities (Question 10) include: increasing transparency in assignments (66 percent); improving supervisory skills of FS supervisors (55 percent); and increasing Eligible Family Mem- ber employment opportunities (45 percent). Satisfaction Issues at Post:  The only issue at posts that received a high “not satisfied” rating (56 percent) remains the “Consolidation of Administra- tive Services” under the International Cooperative Administra- tion Support Services agreement. The ICASS consolidation has now been universally implemented overseas and has had sufficient time to correct previously identified problems. However, the survey indicates that little progress has resulted, at least for USAID FSOs. Major complaints still exist regarding exorbitant costs and continued poor, unequal customer ser- vice compared to before ICASS, when USAID provided these same services to its employees. USAID Support Offices:  The support services of Human Resources, Financial Manage- ment and Travel and Transportation (Questions 15, 16 and 17, respectively) have now been followed over the course of three annual surveys. Improvements have been made in the follow- ing areas: • Human Resources: The Human Resources Office improved its scores (Question 15) in the 2012 survey compared to 2011. Its “poor” rating was reduced from 59 percent in 2011 to 49 percent in 2012.  Its “good” rating improved from 39 percent in 2011 to 49 percent in 2012. This shows real progress. While there were some negative comments made about the office’s performance, there were also laudatory expressions of the good work and support that the HR staff had provided throughout the year. This is the first survey year showing significant improvements and, possibly, the beginning of an encouraging trend. • Chief Financial Management: The Office of the Chief Financial Management (Question 16) also improved its rating between the two surveys by reducing its “poor” rating from 14 percent in 2011 to 10 percent in 2012. • Travel and Transportation: The Travel and Transportation