CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION OF LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: March 31, 1981
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2003/08/13 CIA-RDP84B00890R00040005000
31 March 1981
OPPPM 81-1685
-~`DUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
-DM: Harry E. Fitzwater
Director of Personnel
Policy, Planning, and Management
tX*C%.dr? Scyi47
SUBJECT: Classification and Compensation of Language Specialists
1. Action Requested: This memorandum contains a recommendation for your
approval in paragraph 4.
2. Background:
a. The Language Incentive Program (LIP), when established in October
19 99, included a requirement for an annual effectiveness review. The first annual
revie:, was accomplished by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
in July 1930. Along with other recommendations and findings discussed at
an Executive Committee meeting on 24 November 1980 was the NAPA recommendation
that language specialists not benefit from the LIP by receiving awards for
fluency in the language or mutually intelligible languages for which they were
hired. Following the Executive Committee meeting the Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence charged me with establishing a Task Force to review and report
on the identification, classification, compensation, and career opportunities
OF language specialists by 1 April 1981.
b. The Task Force, which included membership from the four Directorates,
has cc--!pleted its charge. The report is attached for your review.
a. I agree with the Task Force position on employment categories
constituting "language specialists" and the comments on career opportunities.
I do not agree with the position that language specialists continue participating
in the LIP for the language or mutually intelligible language for which they were
hired and, therefore, support the NAPA recommendation. The National Foreign
~sesaoent Center's representative to the Task Force also does not support
continued participation of language specialists in the LIP.
Cu:? N'T '?L\Y BE DOWNGRADED TO
INTERNAL USE ONLY
3EP:~R-\TED FROM CLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 200a"/13 :. CIA-RDP84B0089OR000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/0 / ?,- !. li .DP84B0089OR000400050004-7
b. I recognize the need for language specialists and their value
in accomplishing the Agency's mission but believe it is inappropriate to reward
financially language specialists further for using the skills for which they
were hired. There are other specialists within the Agency (such as computer
programmers, engineers, economists, chemists, etc.) who were hired specifically
for their acquired skills and they do not receive financial reward in addition
to their salary for using their skills. By continuing to reward language
specialists additionally through the LIP for the skill for which they were
hired and paid, a precedent can be set for every other specialist who might
want additional monetary recognition.
- c. Discontinuing the awards to language specialists will impact
25X1 unfavorably on the morale of the =language specialists presently receiving
the award (LIP awards range from $800 to $1500 annually for Level IV proficiency
and the difficulty of the language). To mitigate this impact while acknowledging
the inappropriateness of an earlier decision to grant awards, I suggest a one-
time pay adjustment for language specialists presently receiving LIP awards.
I suggest this pay adjustment rather than a separate salary scale or position
upgrades. A survey of other Federal agencies indicated that language specialists
positions at CIA are normally one grade higher than elsewhere in the Government.
This pay adjustment will be equal to a one-step increase (e.g., a GS-11, step 4
would have his or her pay adjusted to that of a GS-11, step 5, an increase of
$750 per year). This will dampen the morale problem by serving as a signal
to language specialists of the value of their service to the Agency, grant them
increased salary benefits over the long-term, and increase their base salary
for retirement computations and insurance benefits. The one-time cost of the
pay adjustment will be approximately $240,000 in comparison to the $372,000 it
will cost annually to continue rewarding language specialists through the LIP.
Unfortunately, there are presently 10 language specialists who are at the top
step of their General Schedule (GS) grade range and who, therefore, may not be
able to receive this pay adjustment.
d. The pay authorities of the DCI are not tied to the General Schedule
(GS) since CIA is exempt. Thus, the Agency can make this type of pay adjustment.
4. Recomendation: Because of the differing opinions, it is recommended
hat this report be returned to the Executive Committee for consideration before
you make a final decision whether to continue or discontinue the LIP for language
specialists.
25X1
25X1 Attachment
YVY E. F" later
.Dep y Director of Central Intelligence
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
Apprbveo,For Release 2003/08/13: CIA-RDP84B0089OR000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 0~31D '/ '3': CIA-RDP84B0089g5R0004Q0050004-7
Staff Study on the Classification and
Compensation of Language Specialists
I. Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to define language specialists and to
recommend that incentives for language specialists continue to be awarded
through the Language Incentive Program (LIP), as it is presently constituted.
II. Background:
A. In November 1979, The President's Commission on Foreign Language
and International Studies issued the text of its final report to the President
entitled Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of.U.S. Capability. Pointing
to the fact that it had found "a serious deterioration in this country's
language and research capacity, at 'a time when an increasingly hazardous
international military, political and economic environment is making
unprecedented demands on America's resources, intellectual capacity and
public sensitivity," the Commission called on the President to "set an agenda
for action in these areas of national need" and made a number of recommendations
to repair this deficiency in both the private and public sector. Among
these recommendations: the U.S. Government should achieve 100 percent compliance
in filling positions designated as requiring foreign language competency;
review the criteria for such designation in order to strengthen the Government's
foreign language capability; and evaluate the career systems of foreign
affairs agencies to ensure adequate incentives for professional staff members
to acquire and maintain foreign language and area expertise. 0
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 200
MfM 0 1F-RDP84 00890R000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
B. The previous month (October 1979), working in parallel with and
responsive to the activities of the Presidential Commission, CIA had
established the LIP "to encourage the development and maintenance of
foreign language skills to support Agency activities" and "to reward
actual job-related utilization of foreign languages."
That this DCI-directed action occurred in tandem with and in response to
the work of the Presidential Commission is evident in the terms of a
26 March 1979 letter from the DCI to Dr. Brzezinski in which he stated:
"As you know, the quality of US intelligence depends in no small measure on
our ability to hire well-educated foreign area specialists and linguists,
and we are especially interested in increasing the quality of advanced research
on foreign areas."
0
C. To meet the LIP requirement for an annual review to assess its
effectiveness, the Agency contracted with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) in July 1980 to conduct the first annual review. As
a result of the NAPA report on the LIP, the Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence, at the Executive Committee meeting of 24 November 1980,
charged the D/PPPM with defining those personnel hired principally for their
language skills (that is, "language specialists"), and with establishing a
Task Force by 1 January 1981 to review and report on the classification and
compensation of language specialists by 1 April 1981.
D. Specifically, the Executive Committee approved the NAPA
recommendation that "persons hired or appointed to their present positions,
based primarily on their language skills, should be excluded from the
Language Use Award (LUA), Language Achievement Award (LAA), and Language
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/08/13 .,q. A-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
 ~1..~Vt}13.a J
Approved For Release 2003/08/13 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
Maintenance Award (LAIN) in the language or mutually intelligible languages
upon which the appointment was based;" the Executive Committee directed that
the Task Force "report on job classification, career opportunities, or special
salary rates to be established in lieu of LUAs," with the LUAs for language
specialists being "discontinued upon the implemental n of the decisions made
on the basis of the Task Force recommendation." The IAPA Team hart specified
that "the effective date of discontinuing the LUA shoujld be a date where a
pay adjustment or personnel action takes place for the specific imlividuals
involved" and that "cutting off the LUA for language sp?-)ecialists without
taking other action to recognize their value to the org `anizatia& would
signal an abrupt reversal of recognition indicated earl 'er," tie sult of
which "could be extremely deleterious." The Executive C
?omnmittee also approved
the NAPA recommendation that the LUAs be continued as an , elegy f the LIP,
but that participation be limited "to full-time position43 ov in which a
language is essential," amending this recommendation to a all 7MMMMel.in
CONUS-based d DDS&T-designated slots to continue re(_ 'Ceiving " 0
E. The Task Force on Language Specialists, having revi: .red' hK rge
of the Executive Committee and having met on 16 December 1980 nd 9 -d 25
February 1981, reached agreement on the employment categories 'stitute
language specialists, discussed the career opportunities avai: language
specialists, and discussed proposals for alternative ways to c to
language specialists if they are excluded from the three types guage
I
III. Present Policy and Procedures:
The CIA Language Incentive Program is currently available full-time
staff employees, staff agents, career associates, contract emp
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/08/13 ; GIA. RD?84B00890R000400050004-7
f
 ~,r a
Approved For Release 2003/08~1A4RbP841300890R000400050004-7
and part-time employees who work at least 20 hours per week and are U.S.
citizens. The LIP presently consists of three awards -- the Language Use,
Language Achievement, and Language Maintenance Awards. LUAs take the form
of an addition to compensation as follows:
-- $50 per biweekly pay period to those employees filling Unit
Language Requirement (ULR) positions designated by their
Directorates and who have been tested to have Minimum
Professional Proficiency (Level 3) or higher, if required
by the position, in the required language and skill.
-- $25 per biweekly pay period to those employees filling ULR
positions overseas designated by their Directorates and who
have been tested at a level no lower than one full level below
the required proficiency and, in any case, no lower than Level 2.
At present, language specialists are receiving LUAs. LAAs and LM s are
lump-sum payments of varying amounts to those employees designated as
participants in the program by their Directorates and who have been tested or
certified to have a proficiency level in the specified incentive language.
The number of LAAs and LMAs paid to language specialists is minimal in comparison
with those paid to non-language specialists.
IV. Discussion of Options:
25X1
A. Throughout its deliberations, the Task Force found it difficult to
reconcile the NAPA recommendations that the Agency both disqualify language
specialists from participation in the LIP and at the same time identify some
other form of incentive to replace the LIP. As already noted), the NAPA
reasoning was based on the premise that it was inappropriate to reward
language specialists further for the skill for which they were hired. This
position cannot coexist logically with the recommendation to replace
the LIP with some other form of premium. If it is wro Q ~
Approved For Release 2003/08/13: CIA-RDP84BO&bOtRO8t6R6J90004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 Gl -itJP 4B00890R000400050004-7
additional compensation to language specialists in any continuing manner
beyond their normal rate of pay, then it is equally wrong to provide
additional compensation in the form of bonuses or anything similar. If
there is no compelling ground for additional recognition, then there is
not, and never was, compelling ground for a language incentive program for
language specialists.
0
B. The following discussion of options for replacing the LIP for
language specialists illustrates the difficulty of mating these two
recommendations. Further, all of the options also entail inequities,
difficulties of administration, or costs in excess of those in the existing
system. Still further, the creation of an alternate system solely for
language specialists would create administrative difficulties when eligible
officers move from one program to another.
V. Options:
The Task Force, in arriving at its decision, considered the following
options.
0
A. Continue rewarding language specialists through the LIP, as currently
constituted.
0
1. Arguments for this solution are primarily: a) the mandate
of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies;
b) the morale of the employees who see the awards as the first sign of
long-deserved recognition of the value of their contribution; c) the fact that
payment of the award is at the discretion of the component after qualification
by test; d) the flexibility of the LIP so that changes can easily be made; and,
e) the value of the awards as both a recruitment incentive and an incentive
to language specialists to remain in components doing language-related work.
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/0 35 glARDP84B00890R000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000400050004-7
2. Arguments against this solution are primarily: a) the
inappropriateness of further rewarding language specialists for the skill
for which they were hired; and, b) the fact that this could set
a precedent for every other specialist who might want monetary recognition.
B. Continue rewarding specialists through the LIP, but only for
those languages for which the Agency is unable to find sufficient numbers
of specialists. 0
0
1. Arguments for this solution are the same as in A.I. --
the need to upgrade national language assets, the morale and contribution
of those who would continue to get awards, the discretionary payment and
flexibility, and the use of the awards as recruitment and retention incentives.
An additional argument in this case, however, is that a selective awards
program would be directed toward the critical language needs of the Agency,
rewarding those people who fill those needs, and encouraging further study
in those specific languages.
2. Except for the precedent-setting consideration in A.2.b., the
argument against this solution is the same as in A.2. -- the inappropriate-
ness of further rewards. The exception is made because it would be clear
from the fact that this awards program is selective that the skill was being
rewarded only because it was of critical need. Another argument against
this solution is also apparent -- the morale and perception of inequity
on the part of those language specialists in non-critical languages whose
awards would be discontinued.
0
C. Discontinue the LIP for language specialists, but institute a
separate salary scale for them. "
1. The arguments for this solution are: a) that all language
specialists would continue to receive recognition for their skills, but
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/08/163 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000400050004-7
 .~ r 1
Approved For Release 2003/08/1V : (A-bP84B00890R000400050004-7
that this recognition would not be in the form of an incentive aiwlard for
the very skills for which they were hired; and, b) that despite the fact
that the CIA salary structure for language specialists already exceeds that
of most of the rest of Government, this structure does not always reflect
the fact that CIA language specialists are making a greater contribution to
national security and other aspects of our national life than are linguists
in some other areas of Government, that the types of work performed are often
unrelated to language work in the rest of Government, and that the work is
frequently far more difficult, involving substantive expertise as well as
the language.
0
2. The arguments against this solution are: a) that it cannot be
shown that there is a lack of language-qualified candidates either for CIA or,
it appears, for other Government agencies, as the Office of Personnel
Management has not established a special language pay scale; and, b) that although
the option to employ this solution does exist under the special authorities of
the Director of Central Intelligence, past DCIs have been reluctant to use
their special authorities for this purpose and the General Counsel has been
equally reluctant to have them do so. 0 25X1
D. Discontinue the LIP for language specialists, but upgrade
language-specialist positions.
0
1. The arguments for this solution are the same as those for C.I. --
recognition would continue, but the granting of an award to someone for the skill
for which they were hired would cease and the unique contribution of CIA
language specialists would be recognized.
2. The arguments against this solution are: a) that the CIA
salary structure for language specialists already exceeds that of most
25X1
Approved For Release 2003/08/13 7 CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000400050004-7
of the rest of the Government, and PMCD sees no possiblity of further
grade enhancement for this category of employees; b) that if this measure
were taken for language specialists there would be a rippling affect to
other employees; and, c) that such a solution would only solve the problem
for 18 to 28 months, after which the salary structure :would again begin to
0
E. Discontinue the LIP for language specialists, but bring them on-
board at a higher step within the grade at which they are hired. 0 25X1
1. The argument for this solution is similar to that for
C.l.a. -- recognition, but no award for the same skill as that hired for.
In this case, the recognition would be implicit in the hiring process. I 25X1
2. The argument against this solution is that only those employees
not yet hired would be eligible for the increment, thus possibly. causing
a grave morale problem for those now on-board who are receiving the awards.
.F. Discontinue the LIP for language specialists, but institute a
. 25X1
0
retention bonus or some other kind of incentive system for them. 25X1
1. The argument for this solution is again the same as that
for C.l.a. -- recognition, but no award for the same skill as that hired
for. Q
2. The argument against this solution is again that of the
inappropriateness of rewarding a specialist for the skill for which he
or she was hired -- as this would essentially be the sane solution as
the current LIP, with a different name, it would make more sense to retain
the current program.
G. Discontinue the LIP for language specialists, but give
those currently on-board an in-step, and bring on-board those newly hired
Approved For Release 200 !Sk-B r4 ,_tl k-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
R
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13":1CIA~RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
at a higher step within the grade at which they were hired.
0
25X1
1. The argument for this solution is again similar to
that for C.l.a. -- recognition, but no "duplicate" monetary award. In
this case, not only would the recognition be implicit in the hiring process,
but it would also include those on-board. 0 25X1
2. The arguments against this solution are similar to
two of those in C.2. -- the rippling affect to other employees and the
leveling out of the pay scale in relatively short order. In addition,
this solution would seem to run counter to the desire on the part of Agency
management to relate performance to awards similar to the Quality Step Increase;
it would provide language specialists with an increment that would affect
their salaries throughout their careers, even if they should move out of
language-specialist positions; and, as in C., it is contrary to established
Agency policy and thus would require the DCI's special authorities to
implement. Furthermore, it would have built-in inequities in that the
amount of the step increase for a GS-7, for example, is less than
that for a GS-12 -- and those at the tenth step of a grade (at present,
this would involve 10 people) would be ineligible to receive further
funds. 0
VI. Task Force Position:
A. The Task Force agreed that those employment categories
constituting "language specialists" include Intelligence Officer-Foreign
Documents, Scientific Linguist, Translator, Broadcast Monitor-Multilingual,
Transcriber, Translator-Supervisor, Transcriber-Supervisor, and Instructor-Foreign
Language. 0
Approved For Release 2003/ /13 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
B. The Task Force found that structured career opportunities currently
exist for Intelligence Officers-Foreign Documents. No such opportunities
exist for other language specialists, although the DO representatives
stated that they would be willing to design a career development profile
for their personnel. Furthermore, an examination of the career tracks
of language specialists has revealed that there is a great deal of movement
within offices and transfers from one office to another, in many cases
leading to new careers and higher grades. 0
C. The Task Force, having reviewed and discussed all of the options
just presented, concluded that each would be in one sense a continuation
of the LIP, in that each would indeed provide special recognition for
the language skill for which the person was hired. The Task Force further
concluded that each option would entail inequities, difficulties of adminis-
tration, or costs which could exceed any now existing with the LIP.
The Task Force found that participating components regard the LIP as an
effective program that is working and as a welcome signal of the value
placed by Agency management upon the skills and contributions of language
specialists to the Agency and to their country. Indeed, a perception
of inequity would occur among those who might be disqualified from continued
participation in the program. 0
D. In light of the fact that discontinuance of these awards could
be demoralizing to valuable employees; in cognizance of the recommendations
of the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International
Studies, the NAPA Team, the Executive Committee, and the former DCI
and DDCI; in view of the generally positive effect the program has had
25X1
Approved For Reld'ase 2003/08/1j3: CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050004-7
since its inception; and having identified no more effective means of
conveying Agency management concerns in this area, the Task Force,
with one dissenting vote, has concluded that the soundest and most
appropriate measure of recognition for language specialists is Option A --
that is, the Language Incentive Program now in force. The dissent has been
expressed by NFAC which, acknowledging that any demoralizing affect would
be unfortuante, takes the position recommended by the NAPA Team and approved
by the Executive Committee that language specialists " . . . should be
excluded from [LIP awards] in the language or mutually intelligible
languages upon which [their] appointment was based." (The NFAC position
is detailed in the memorandum attached.) However, the Task Force supports
the idea that the Language Development Committee should continue to
review, annually, the appropriateness of awarding language awards to
language specialists. II
Attachment
Task Force Members:
25X1
iri t, ~ IA-l DP84B00890R000400050004-7
Approved For Release 20031/0$,