IIllAll lllll IllFiyi!lllll lllll Iill Ill1 COMpTROLLClR &fNEl?AL OF TliE UNIT ED STATES WASHINGTOld. 13.C. 2.0548 B-70896 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 3Iousc of Representatives This is our report on improvements needed in menagement of training under the Government Employees Training Act in the Department of Defense. Our review WAS made pursuant to the budget and ~‘~ccount- ing Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53): and the Accounting and Yluditing iict of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67). Copies of this report arc being sent to the Director, Office of Mar_agement a.nd Budget; tbc Secretary of Defense; the Secre- taries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Director, Defense Supply Agency; and the Chairman, United States Civil Service Commission. of Comptroller the United General States .~. --------- SO -l-l-l Ai\!NIVERSAKY 1921 - 1931 - DIGEST ------- House Report 329, issued June 1, 1967, identified proble~~s in employ~c training in the Federal government and recommended improvements. The General Accounting Office (G/'&O) reviewed the Department of Defense (DOD) management of its emplcyce training progra!ii at 14 installations to see what had been done in response to the recomr*ndations and tc I determine the current status of the program. , ? .c r nC p ' ; !'!3 .-‘ The House report estimated that SlCO million was spent in fiscal year 1966 for training all Federal emploldees. The ssw xcaknesses identi- find in 1967 regsrdiny t1-ainir:g cos ?s continu~zd to exjsi ~:ji'llin !Xli during fisc.21 year 1970. --The mil-i tary departmc:nts and DaD ngencies did not ha\!? adquatc accounting sysie,i:s for determii~ing and re;jorting acc.ut*atc~ cor,ts of training. (See p. 9.) --Not all training costs xerc being identified in the cost account- ing systems. (See p. 8.) --Information reported to the Congrc:ss tended to give a distorted picture of the training prograsis th at were being open*atcd undtir the act. This hsppcned hccaus? more than 75 perceni of tile costs were never reported. (See p. 8.) Costs shown in the annual training report are not obtained from the accounting system, but from various source documents. In atteq)ting to determine the accuracy of these costs, GAO found that, in most cases, the documents either were not available or could not be rec- onciled to the report. (See p. 9.) Trainee salaries have never been reported as a training cost in the Ztitiual training report. GAO believes Vlat this is the most signi-iicant cost element in the Federal trdiliing pro?rat:l and should be reported. (See p. 8.) ‘I‘CJI SllCct Training programs at the military installations visited were in various stages of dcvel OpNent. For example, at some of the Army installations, a training plan had been developed through the joint efforts of super- visors, training personnel, and the training committee. In contrast, none of the three Navy activities had prepared an overall installation training plan as required. Instructions issued by the military ser- vices and the Defense Supply Agency for determining training needs and developing training plans generally appeared adequate. They had not been effectively implemented, however, at the majority of the installa- tions visited. (See p. 16.) Discussions with employees revealed that most of them thought that training selection procedures had been applied fairly, -The majority of those trained said that they had been informed of the objectives of the training course prior to attendance and that the training had improved their job performance. GAO believes that generally the selection pro- cedures were applied fairly, but there was little indication at some installations of a systematic method of selection. (See p. 20.) In addition, GAO believes that weaknesses in the training program are indicated, as follows: --Inadequate procedures and controls to ensure that all com~~lctetl training is recorded in th e individual's personnel folder as re- quired. (See p. 24.) --Evaluations of training comjjleted have not been documented to pro- vide management with an opporttinity to systematically analyze the I effectiveness of particular training courses in meeting orgsniza- / tional needs. (See p. 23.) --Internal audits and Civil Service Commission inspections have not been made in recent years to provide management wth an independent evaluation of the training program. (See p. 27.) RECOl"4/d,,?DA171@l"llS -PI____-- O;?,SI:~l;~;?Xi'IO. -- The Secretary of Defense should --consider identifying training costs in the accounting system to make these data available to managers at all levels (see p, 12); --ensure that DOD Instruction 1430.5, prescribing policies and standards for the conduct of training, is properly implemented (see p. 29); --ensure that -aiquate--.-- procedures and management controls dre estab- lished for recording conlpleted training in the personnel files (see p. 29); and --promote incrc~sed eir1ph2s-i~ on surveillance of training activilies by the use of management review groups3 including internal auditors (see p. 29). The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission should --provide more leadership in recommending or establishing a uniform costing systcx for training items to ensure that costs are com- parable (see p. 12) and --provide more frequent inspections of the traininc activities at military departments and DOD agencies (see p. 29 r' . The Civil Service Com,nission aqrwd, in general, ;:ith GAO's findings. The Commission, hcwi?ver, does not believe it practical for DOD--or any other large Federal orgattization-- to establish procedures requiring that training cyst items be identified in accounting sysi-ems. (See p. 12.) The Commission is attempting to determine the practicality of developing cost models for training. DQD in recognition .of the iii~port~nc~ of identjfyi,!g and reco~d.incj i.osi.; of trainin;] 5 bdill co;ii-i:Iue to cooperate in testing the system bs;'ng dk,~cloped by the Co,;ii~;issicn for Goveriiment- wide application. GAO w-i1 1 rw13we further c~nmnts until we have had the opportunity to evaluate that system in opera?ion. (See pp. 13 to 15.) DOD will reenphx~izze to tl~c military dzpartm?nts md defense ;gzncics the need to comply b!.i ;?I prescrited policies and stxdartls for training civil- ians. Particular empl-iasis will be given to the admin'istrative require- ments for recordkceping. DOD and the Comwission rpcoqn1: ze the nceci to cover tra.ining activities when mak-ing rcvie~: arid irlspectiot?s. The corrective actions of the Co:n:nission and DOD appear to be responsive to the con&t-ions cited in this report. MAT7!E’RS - %‘<I’< __-- C@,VS l.nl;:Ti/;.Y’7 GV BYx__-____ __-_~-,.-_^ THE C!l!JClXSS These matters are bejng reported to provide more current information on the management of training programs under the Governmznt Employees Train- ing Act in DOD. Tear Sheet Contents Paj:c DIGEST 1 CHnPTER 1 TRAINING OF GOVERNMENTCIVILIAN EMPLOYEES 4 2 TOTAL COST OF FEDERAL TRAINING PROGRAMNOT AVAILABLE 7 Cost of internal training not repor-tfd- 7 Trainee salary cost not reported 8 Erroneous reports resulting from in- adequacies in recordkeeping 9 Recommendations 12 Agency comments and GAO evaluation 12 3 NEED FOR IMPROVEHENTSIN MAMGEMENT OF TRAINING PROCRM~S 16 Inconsistencies in implementation of training pl.an requircmcnts 16 Selection of employees for training 20 Inadequacies in trrain-ing evaluaLions 23 Inadequacies in documenting training given 24 Training needs not categorized as sug- gested in.subconiir,ittec report 26 Training of foreign national employees 26 Lack of internal audits and inspections 27 Rccomiendations 29 Agency comments and GAO evaluation 29 4 SCOPE OF REVIEW 32 APPENDIX I Letter dated September 21, 1970, from the Chairman, United States Civil. Service Com- mission, to the General Accounting Office 35 II Letter dated October 2, 1970, from the As- sistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) to the Comptroller General. of the United States 42 APPENDIX Paw III Principal o'ficials of the Department of Defense, the military departments, and the United States Civil Service Com- mission responsible for administration of activities discussed in this report 45 * ABBREVIATIONS CONUS Continental United States DOD Department of Defense GAO General Accounting Office DIGEST ------- ~&I~ yj]E: iij,y’\,‘_TFr,’ - ;,,‘/>,$ ;in/.i:? . House Report 329, issued June 1, 1967, identified problems in employee training in the Federal yovernnxznt and recommended improvements. The Getleral Accounting Office (GAO) reviewc! the Department of Dpi'ense (DOD) mana~emcnt of its employee training program at 14 installations to see wi1ci-t; had been done in response to the recommendations And to determine the current status of the program. FIJ,J QJfQ (;>7 fjJu i,~~Q c i, u;Cj ; !,-jS -_c_--- -.LL.- -- The t!ouse report estimated that $180 million was spent in fiscal year 1966 for training all Federal employees. The same we;:i:nesscs idcnti- fied in 1967 reg;:t-ding tt”dilliliCJ cask cntil;inued to exist within DOD during fiscal year '1970. --The military dcpartr;+znts and DOD agencies &id not have ad?quatc accounting systerl;s for determining and reporting accurak costs of tral'tt-iny. (See p. 9.) --Not a17 training costs y/ere being identified in the cost account- ing systems. (See p. 8.) --Information reported to the Congress tended to give a distorted picture of the training program5 that p!ere be-ing operated under the act. This happened because more than 75 percent of the costs were never reported. (See p. 8.) Costs show-t in the annual training report are not obtained from the accounting system, but from various source documents. In attempting to determine the accuracy of these costs, GAO found that, in most - cases, the documents either were not available or could not be rec- onciled to the report. (See p. 9.) Trainee salaries have never been reported as a training cost in the annual training report. GAO believes that this is the most significant cost element in the Federal training prtigratil and should be reported. (See p. 8.) Training prcjgrai\:s at the military installations visited were in various stages of development. For example, at some of the Army installations, a training plan Ilad been developed through the joint efforts of super- visors: trainin? personnel 3 and the training committee. In contrast, none of the three Navy activities had prepared an overall installation training plan as required. Instructions issued by the military ser- vices and the Defense Supply Agency for determining training needs and developing training plans generally appeared adequate. They had not been effectively im~lerw?ted, ho:irever, at the majority of the installa- tions visited. (See p. 76.) Discussions with employees revealed that most of them thought that training selection procedures had been applied fairly. The majority of those trained said that they had been informed of the objectives of the training course prior to attendance and that the training had improved their job performance. GAO believes that generally the selection pro- cedures were applied fairly, but there was little indication at some installations of a systematic method of selection. (See 1). 20.) In addition, GP.0 believes that weaknesses in the training program are indicated, as follows: --Inadequate procedures and controls to ensure th(;t all cw1p1cte.d training is recorded in the individual's personnel folder as re- quired. (See p. 24.) --Evaluations of training completed have not been docw?nted to pro- vi de management with ilti oppovtuni ty to systematictill!! analyze the effectiveness of paYt< cular tr;lining courses in meeting organiza- tional needs. (See p. 23.) --Internal audits and Civil Service Comrni ssion inspections have not heen mdde in recent years to provide management with an itidependent evaluation of the training program. (See p. 27.) The Secretary of Defense should --consider identifying training costs in the accoutlting system to make these data available to managers at all levels (see p. 12); ---ensure that D@D Instruction 1430.5, prescribing policies and standards for the conduct of training, is properly implemented (see p. 29); --ensure that adequate procedures and management controls are estab- listicd ----- -Y-j-;---- completed for rccor[ling training in the personnc?l files (see p. 29); atld 2 --promote increased emphasis on surveillance of training activities by the use of management review groups, including internal auditors (see pm 29). The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission should --provide more leadership in recommending or establishing a uniforlll costitlg system for training items to ensure that costs are com- parable (see p* 12) and . activities at --provide more frequent inspections of the trainin military departments and DOD agencies (see p, 29 9 , - -._ AGEKY ACTIO&5' -_I_-. AIVD UNRESOLVEDISSUES The Civil Service Commission agreed, in general, with GAO's findings. The Commission, however, does not believe it practical for DOD--or any other large Federal organization-- to establish procedures requiring that training cost items be iderltified in accounting systems. (See p. 12.) The Commission is attempt ing to determine the practicality of developing cost riode7s fcr training, DOD, in recognjtion of the importzncu of identifying and recording costs of training, will continue to cooperate in testing the system being developed by the Commission for Governrrient- wide appl\cation. GAO will reserve further comments until !,le have had the opportunity to evaluate that system in operation. (See pp. 13 to 15,) DOD will reemphasize to the military departments and defense agencies the need to comply with prescribed policies and standards for training civil- ians. Particular emphasis will be given to the administrative require- ments for recordkeeping. DOD and the Conmission recognize the need to cover traikng activities when making rev-ietrs and -inspections. The corrective actions of the Commission and DOD appear to be responsive to the conditions cited in this report. .MATiiRRS FOR ('ONSILXRATIOlf El' THE' COiJGKS'S --l_l_---- These matters are hejng reported to provide more current information on the management of training programs under the Government Employees Train- ing Act in DOD, 3 CHAPTER 1 TRAIIYING OF CX)VERNMENT CIVILIAN FX$FLOYEES ---- The Government JZmployees Training Act (5 U.S.C. 2301) provides for Governnent-sponsored progr,ams to supplement and extend self-education, self-improvement, and self- training by employees. Training is defined by the act to be: i "*-k$c the process of providing for and making avail- able to an employee, and placing or enrolling such employee in, a planned, prepared,, and coordinated program, course, curriculum, subject, system, or routine of instruction or education, in scientific, professional, technical, mechanical, trade, cleri- cal, fiscal, administrative, or other fields which are or will be directly related to the performance by such employee of official duties for the Govern- ment, in order to increase the knowledge, profi- ciency, ability, skill, and qualifications of such employee in the performance of official duties.'" Both the ELuecutive Order I'To, 11348 of April 20, 1967, which resulted in part from the findin;;s of the Presidential Task Force on Career Advancement, and the act gave the Civil Service Commission the responsibility and the autllority for the effective promotion and coordination of programs estab- lished and training operations under these programs. The Commission was directed to prescribe regulations containing the principles, standards, and related requirements for the programs, and plans thereunder, for the training of employees of the departments under authority of the act. House Report 329, dated June I, 1967, issued by the Subcommittee on LNanpower and Civil Service, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, identified a number of problem areas in the effectiveness of implementation of the act, Principal among these were a lack of cost accounting systems for determining training costs, particularly in- house costs; an inadequate amount of interagency training; inadequate monitoring of non-Government trainin& souJ:ce:;; questional,e practices in selecting cmployecs for training; potential duplication of training efforts; and dcftcicnt evaluation of tr3inillg programs. * . To correct these problems, the Subcommittee recommended that --the Commission provide leadership to departments and agencies in establishing better cost systems for training:; --departments and agencies, with Commission leadership, give greater consideration to allowing more employees from other agencies to participate in their training programs; - --training through non-Government sources be more closely reviewed to ensure that comparable training is not more economically available within the Gov- ernment; --local application of trai.nee selection procedures be more closely monitored; --departments and agencies not develop and conduct trainillg courses xfhhich arc' available through esistillg school systems; and and agencies develop and implcmcnt moor. - - dCpZlrtIilC!IltS adequate programs to evaluate aLI. phases of the?.r training programs, with emphasis on trainee perfor- mance after training, The same Subcommittee, in I'Iouse R:?port 207, dated April. 24, 1.967j commented, jn part, on certain problems .per- taining to the training of local nationals in 'iiTestcrn l?u- ropean and Far Kastern countries. DoD Directive 1430.4 assigns the responsibilities for civilian employee training to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Pianpok:er and Reserve Affairs) and delegates author- ity to conduct internal revicrqs of training needs and to establish and administer programs of training to tile Sccre- taries of the military departments and the directors of D'ID agencies. DID Instruction l430,5 prescribes policies and s tont?nrds for the conduct of training. These regulations, in general, delineate training rcspon- sibilities to headquarters and field activity offici.als and provide guidance for planning, administering, and reporting employee development and training operations. Our review was conducted mainly at the civilian person- nel offices of the military installations visited and was . directed toward an evaluation of the management of the training of civilians in DOD, therefore this report is not intended as an overall evaluation of the personnel functions at these installations. CHAPTER 2 --- TOTAL COST OII FEDERAJ, _---I TRAlNLNC PRCCRAIYI -- NOT AVAlLAI3LE --- Concern of the Subcommittee about the identification and reporting of Federal training program costs, aggregating an estimated $180 million for fiscal year 1966, was evi- _ dented in the Subcommittee's report by the following obser- vations. --Most Federal departments and agencies appzrentl$ do not have adequate systems for determining and report- ing accurate costs of training. --More emphasis needs to be placed on identifying training cost items in existing cost accounting sys- terns. --Annual reports reflect the cost 0f.onl.y non- Governlnent training and conseqxlently are p0t~~l~tia1.1.): misleading with regard to the actual cost of train- ing throughout the Fcdcrsl Go\TerndTeilt. --Annual reports tend to give a distorted pictu2.c of the training programs that are being operated under the Government Employees Training Act alld their ac- tual cost. Our review of civilian training activities in Dar> revealed that the conditions cited above still existed in that agency. COST -,-. OF lNTE2NAL - _I_cI_I_ TRAINlKG z -.___.--. KOT "--,.___.--._ KU'ORTED _------111 The annual training report prepared by DOD and submit- ted to the Commission and the Congress has never included the expenditures for internal (within DOD) training. Prior to the receipt of instructions for the preparation of the fiscal year 1970 training report, personnel at the installa- tions had not been instructed to include the cost of inter- nal training in the annual report, During the 1970 appropriation hearings, the Commission was unnble to provide the total cost of tile Federal trnin- ing program for fiscal years 1967-69. ,The only cost it could provide wzs the $180 million estimated in House Re- port 329 for fiscal year 1966. The appropriation Suhcom- mittee was told t-hat the training costs for fiscal year 1959 would be reported to the Commission by all Federal agencies and that, for the first time, agencies would esti- mate the cost of training conducted in their own facilities. Instruction5 to the military installations for the prep>ra- tj.on of the 1969 trn.inSng report, however, did nqt j.nclude the Commission's request for the cost of internal trai.r,lng:, and, as a result, these costs were not reported. Since the traii:ing reports prepared by DOD do not in- clude tile cost of internal training, which norma13.y accounts for more than 75 percent of the total trainin;; costs as sho\~~nby House Report 329, we believe tll*zt the reports are still misleading and that the) tend to give a di.stortcd picture of the cost of the training program. Since: Nousc Rcpcjrt 329 was issued, the ;;_~:r~tsl reports 1 prepared b;~ DOD 1x1~~ include?, the co,~t of j.nteragerlcy train- : ing in addition to the cost of non--Govcrnmcnt trai.nj.nc,. On ’ the baxj~s of the cost data devel.opnd for fiscal year 1966, however, the cost of interagency training accounted for about 3 percent of the total cost of about $180 million spent for training ci\Til.i.an employees. TRAIXEE SALAHY -_II_-- COST NOT KEPOKTED _.-, -.. _-.--.--.--------.-- -- The Comx!ission, in itr; 7'.nstructions for the prcpayciion of the annual training report through fiscal year 1970, Inad? no provision for including the cost of traillee salaries as a cost of training. 'Thus the larges t sing1 e cost t~lernxlt of the training program is excluded when installations re- port their expenditures for training. On thz basis of the reported hours of training, we es- timated the cost of trainee salaries at the 11 installations visited to be in excess of $5 million. For the same i.n-- stallatjons the expenditures for traj.ning rpcordcd ill the annual r~xport 9 rlrhir>h wer2 for interagency and lion-Go‘,lerilmerlt training only: amounted to $SOS,15G. Ne bel.icve 1.11~: the M estimates developed at these installations indicate tllnt the trainee salaries cost is the most significant element of cost in the Federal trniniq; program. Salary costs are of particular significance at instal- lations that sponsor long-term trainirlg programs at colleges or universities. For example, at one installation we noted that, during the first 10 months of fiscal year 1969, sal- ary costs for employees attending a college or university amounted to $222,157 whereas materials, travel, and tuition costs were only $23,202. These long-term training cqsts accounted for about 60 percent of the total spent for-all traini.ng. If salary costs are not reported, the cost of training is significantly understated. In our opinion, the amount of money paid to an individ- ual while he is in a training status is definitely a cost to be consi.&red ~hcn developing the total cost of the Federnl training program. I& believe that any cost--benefit analysi:; of the training p.ro b. 'ram lrould not be mesningful unless trainee :;uf Aries were cunsider2d, At the ml:Litary irxt:a13ations visi.ted, the costs in- curred for the training of civilian einployees were not readily available from the accounting system, bec2u:;e not all the training costs were identified separately, At many installations travel and per diem costs incurred in co~inec- tion wi th training were not separated from other travel a11ci per diem costs. Even at installations with a detail.cd cost accounting system, the total cost of the training program was not available from the accounting records. One instnl- lation reported training costs of about $1.9 million for the fiscal year, made up of salary and material costs from the accounting records plus travel and per diem costs esti.- mated by the budget officer. Me found that persons responsible for reporting train- ing expenditures and statistical data in the annual training report had accumulated the data from such sources as course an~lovllcemeI?i.~ g ~ttendnnce records B and travel orders. Tlh? cost dafawer~~ llot obtainctd from the accounting records. 1-13 general,adequatc procedures and corltrols had not been es- tablished to ensure the accuracy of the data reported. Inadequacies in maintaining accurate and complete rcc- ords have resulted in erroneous reports' being prepared and submitted to higher headquarters. These reports are the source of, the information for the annual training re- port submitted to the Commission and the Congress. Also, these reports have been the source of information presented during appropriation hearings. At the installations visited, we attempted to verify the accuracy of the costs and statistical data in the an- nual training report, In some instances we :qere informed that the schedules prepared in accumulating the information for the report had not been retained. In most cases the data in the report could not be reconciled with the docu- ments which we were informed were the source of the infor- mation reported. Exnmplcs ai? some of the inacclrrate reporting of data in the training report follow. One installation reported training costs of $92,680. In attempting to recoristrllct the cost of trainingY however p agency personnel fcx-ir~d that they had errone- ously included $19,784 twice. As a result, training costs were overstated more than 25 percent, Officials at one installation informed us that they did not submit a training report for fiscal year 1968 because of confusion during reorganization. Our re- view of available records indicated that about $195,350, exclusive of trainee salaries, was expended for training 839 participants in 1968. Another installation's report indicated that 365 em- ployees were trained in 1968. Our review of the civil- ian training report files, which we were informed were the source of the information for the training report, however, showed that 495 employees had been trained. On the basis of our revie\irB it appears that there has been no signi.fican;_ improvement in the determini.ng and reporting of training costs in DOD since House Report 329 was issued in 1967. As a result, we believe that it will not be possible to determine the total cost of the program unless more definite cost records are prescribed and main- tained at each installation. We believe that adequate procedures and controls should c be developed to improve the accuracy of the reported data. We believe also that, to submit complete and accurate rc- ports, personnel responsible for these reports at the in- stallations need a better understanding of the reporting requirements and an appreciation of the importance of mnin- taining reliable supporting data. RECOFPENDATIONS --. We recolmmend that: --The Secretary of Defense should consider the feasi- bil.ity of instituting procedures to require training cost items to be identified in the accounting system to make this type of data available to managers at all levels for them to make decisions on various training programs on the basis of more complete in- formation. This data also would be the basis of the cost information required in the annual training re- port as well as the basis for determining the total cost of the Federal training program in DOD. --The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission should provide more leadership in recommending or establish- ing a uniform costing system for training items to erisur~~ L that costs are comparable. The policie:; and implementing instructjons concerning what costs to include under the training program and how these costs are to be detcrmtned and reported should be dis- seminated to ascertain within reasonable levels of ac- curacy what the training program is costing. AGENCY CO~llh~KIS --_l AND GAO EVALUATTON ."~--_-__l----_--_l_-- Tn commenting on our draft report, the Commission agreed, in general, with our fi.ndings that --the cost of internal training had not been reported, --trainee salary costs had not been reported, and --erroneous training expenditure reports had been the result of inadequacies in recordkeeping, (See app. I.> The Commission questioned whether our statement that the cost of internal training generally accounted for more than 75 percent of the total cost of training was support- able. The Commissjon appears to have assumed that our statc- ment v7rs;1s based on its fiscal year 1969 annual report of training whj ch incli.catcd that 73.7 percent of total partici- pant mall- hour>? aild 78-5 perc:ent of total trai.iliI1g instances 12 had been reported as internal training* The Commission ob- served that it could not be assumed that the ratio of inter-. nal cos'is to total costs would be directly proportionate to the ratio of internal participation to total participation. We agree with such a rationale; however, the statement in our draft report is supported by the cost information presented in House Report 329. This is the same source of the cost information presented by the Commission during the 1970 appropriation hearings. -. The Commission stated that it was not surprised that erroneous training reports llad resulted from inaccurate training cost bookkeeping. As a result, the Commission is now developing cost and value analysis models which can be used by training staff members who llave not had any prior accounting or bookkeeping experience. The Commission stated also that it believed that it was possible to determine both costs and benefits for use in planning, mana~cment, and rc- porting of training without the establ-ishmen; of rigid ac-- counting procedures---provided that both training and final>- cial management staffs WO~Y~: c~os~IIJ- together on a regular basis. As discussed previ.ously, the erroneous reports were gen- erally the result of inadequate procedures and controls to ensure that all the appropriate data were reported. Even with the development of cost models, it will be necessLr)r to have accurate input q We agree with the Commission that training an d financial management staffs should work closely together on a regular basis; however, this apparently was not the case in preparing the training report. In commenting on our statement that the cost of intcr- nal training was not reported, DOD stated (see app. II) that the instruction From the Commission to irlclude tile cost of internal training in its 1969 report was received too late to adjust reporting procedures without incurring excessive costs 0 Because of this) DOD, with the approval of the Com- mission, delayed reporting data on internal training until the 1970 report. In cornrllenting on our reco~~~,~ndntioIls, the Cor?rnissio:l stated tllat it did not believe that it would be practicsl. 13 or DOD or any other large Fedora1 organization to establish ,xroccdu-~~:~ requiring th;lt trllining cost items be identified in accountin:: systems. The Commission believes that it is p0SSibl.e fOi- agencies to develop analytically derived and periodically adjusted cost estimates Tqhich would be adequate for training management purposes. The Commission is attcmpt- ing to dctermlnz the practicality of developing cost models for training. The cost model development effort currently being con- ducted by the Comjllission is aimed primarily at det&rmining the cost of internal training, therefore the model will in- clude tra ince hourly wages and lost productivity factors, which are the largest interrlal training costs. In addition, the model will include such items as overhead costs, i.e. 9 building leases or rentals, utilities, special facilities, ecIuipm2ilt 9 etc * --develop criteria for testing the Commission's train- ing cost model at a DOD installation and --partici~pate actively in the Colmnission's improvement program by testing the sy.,~"ern L. that the Commission is developing for Governmel-l-t-~,ride application. DOD stated further that the Commission's approach, if suc- cessful., may make it unnece,ssary to attempt the difficult and potentially expensive task of adding training cost items to the present accounting system. Fe do not object to the development of cost models to generate standard costs for the planning and management of the tl-aining pl:ogram. Estimates so developed, however> ShOl.~!.d he 1‘)I-.?.: I iodical ly compared 1h 6th actual costs to detar- mine the reliability of t11e esl.iin;;fcs D In our opinion, at 1~11:.:inst.;lll ;liions visi ted the ;n:lj or training cost items (S< 1 aries) travel 3 and tuition) could he determiwti from ac- COI nting records wit.hout extensive modification of the exist- ing accounting system. In such insta~ici+s these costs s11ou1cl be utilized in measuring the reliability of the standard costs * In view of the Commission's current efforts to develop cost models for training znd DOB's statement that it will continue to cooperate fully with the Con-mission in testing the system being developed for Government-wide application, we p7iil reserve further comnznts until we have had the op- portunity to evaluate the system in operation. commanding officer, At the t1lj.rd irlstallaticn, although tht? proceuurcs for planning to meet training need:; had not L)ce)i systematic in tllc. pa.,c-t, actions had been tal;~n to improve the sit~ration. These acti.ons included the establ.ishment of a trEti.il -ng committee, the implementation of new procedures for determining needs, and the preparation of written train- ing plans. On the basis of our review at tpro of the civilinn per- sonnel offices in the Pacific area, ve believe that the pro- cedures and me~~hods used for identifying training require- merits and pre;laring the training plans are, in general, adc- quat e * We found 3 however, that tllere was no single traiili.ng plan that reflected in detail the overall training program for the co:ixic;nd o Instead, dowx>entation concerning idcnt-i- fled needs and the plan for accompllisl~jng the rcl.atcc! train- ing arc ba :;i cal1.y cegregated into three groups according to the antic ;.l;)atfd source of training. we believe thzt the lack of a cnnsol!.dated trailli.ng plan prevents col.I.ective consicicraticn of total- trajn:'clrg f:e,.-.-.. PC'S when deterrnin-i ng i:c- sources r~_:c~::~.i-~2d c;rid 2.~2iEnbl.e, cstat:.ish.il lg pri orit ic:; y and evaluating the ‘k’rit 1 i-iillg p3:Og~~X , to assist in the overall planning, coordination, auld evalua- tion of the education and training effort. We found that no overall training plan had been prepared for any of the Navy installations visited. In additiotl, at two installations the training comittee, which is respon- sible for development of the training plan, had not met for several years. Officials at the third installation attrib- uted the lack of a traininn b plan for fiscal year 1969 to a reorganization. Because of this? staff resources did not permit the noxnal preparation and suhmi. ssion of tllCT training, plan 0 Subsequent to our fieldwork the commander of this in- stallation informed us that corrective action had been taken to improve the training plan develoijment. Air Force --_I__ Air Force regulations state that each supervisor must determine the development needs within his organization on a continuous c211dsystematic basis and inust clocv:nc~nt and report these needs. The reg.ll.ations also plxmc? th2-L 151: Fsrce Form 1152 P Civilian Deve10p~en.t Record, l-Jr: prepal-ed 'i.I.1docu- ment individur-ll training needs. At one of the three C0IRU.Sinstallations visitcyd, the annual training plan was based on a summarization of tile Civilian Development Records prepared by the supervisors of the employees. The records listed the traini. needs of tile employees and the priority to be used in meeting these need:;, Discussions with scmc of the supervisors, however, i-nclicxtcd that most of them did not determine znd report all their em- ployees' development needs., The other two COIWS installations did not have a train- ing plan ,a.nd were not identifying training needs as required. At one installation the training surveys identified only the number of courses needed and did not identify the individual employee or the need for the training. We were informed that in most cases the Civilian Development Record was not used as a planning document as required but was submitted after the course quotas had been received and the training h'tidget had bcotl approvc4. At thz other installation the ti:i2illill~ SU;l7e;7S sinlply responded to the requests from I8 3. The relat?'.ve length of tine s.nd degree to -2hicfl the agency expects to benefit from the ez~ployces~ im- proved knowledge, skill, attitudf?2 and performance. 4. The employees' mm interest in, and ciforts to im- prove 9 their work. Althotlgh the results of our ~EWTCW indicntpd t!lzt L<eil- erally the sel.eclr.ion procedures had bee~l applied fa~li-'l-y, UC. believe that at some installation:: therlt 173s 1iLtIc Indica- tion of a s>rstexnL:f.c method for sc!1~ction. 20 For cxamp1.e $at one installation we were informed both by training brxch perco~nzl and by exployccs t11at for vari- ous reasor~:; the cmpYi.oyet:~ receiving trainiilg were not alwa)Ts those who cor;i.d utilize it best, They said that it was nec- essary to fill quoCas c, clivcn by service schools to avoid a reduction in allotted quotas, Tllere are instances when, be- cause of work Load requirements, an alternate must be sent who may not be in a PC-'-, <-ition to utilize the training re- ceived, Instal.lati.on officials Said thtlt t'rAC?y X0Ul.d eV2lU- ate their selection process 2nd would take corrective action 'where neck I: si<r>- . In discussions ~5th SU~~TV~SOTSWTC. forli~d t:lc;t most of them did not hnvc_ ;irly systunatic method, as prescribed in the Federal Pcrsonn~~l H~xsl, for the sel.cCtioll Of ETployces for training but usur~fly I.&t it up to the e@.oyec to determine his own needs and to express a desire to receive training. In vie:1 of these selection procedures, we reviewed the Tee- ords of the 47 psrticipai?@s ::ho had coxpleted the Graduate .Acadeqic Program hctween 1362 ad May 1963 and found that . only 19, or about 40 percent, were currently employed on a fd1.-time basis. 21 industry, three retumcd to school, two trLansferred to other Government agcncics, and one retired. Of those who 2cceptc.d employment in private industry, we noted tlrat five had left within a year9 three had left within Z-J./2 years, and one had left about 4 years after cmpletion of the progrm. In our opinion, if more attention had been g?-ve!n to the. factors set out in the Federal. Personnel Mzxmal for conside>.-- 1 aticm in sekcc'cing the empLoyces for training, rather than allow each cmployce to determine his own needs, the reten- a tion rcs.te of the mployzes who had completed the. p~'ol;~'m might have been better. , 22 WC found Little evidence of docunentir~g the evaluation Of training COli~~lC?t~d ,, Although the majority of supcrviscrs said that they had made eva.luations of training, in most cases the evaiuat.ions had consisted of observations or dis- cussions anti had not been documented. The Federal Personnel Manua.1 provides that each agency careful. ly analyze and evaluate the -results and eflfects of training provj dcG to em3loyces .+ As a m irlirnum 9 eva!.uative methods should include a csrcFu1 analysis of: 1 C The extent to which specific training courses or programs produce desired changes in employee knowl- edge, skills, attitude::, or performances. 2, The cxte~3t to which the training color ses that are provided co\ler the areas of greatest need, Al tlloug!! instructions have ?,ee:l i:;::Usd iri~pbci2,?_i~til~S the provisions of the Fcdrral PerSOllI~iC2!. Manual, in most Casi’>s it appears tllat there ha.5 ilOt been sufEic?‘.cnt fol-how-up to ensure that cv;il.uati ons are prepared and submitted 0 Air Force regulations rcqui.re a posttraining evaluation by the supervisor on every course over 40 hours, This eval- uation is to be documented on a specified form and is to be submitted to the civilian personnel branch within 90 days after the training has been completed, AlI employees who participate in off-base trniniilg are prov-ided course cri- tique sheets to evaluate the training received, At one in- stallation our review of records and interviews with 30 em- ployees showed that they had attended 40 courses, Of these tour ses 19 required supervisors ( evaluations whereas 25 of the coux’se s required empl.oye~:s ’ evaluations S We found that only five of tllcl 13 supervisors ’ eva1uat.i ons and four OE the 26 emp!.oyecs 1 e\Taluations had been prcpaj:ed and submitted to the civilian peeso:~;l~.k branch. 23 At one 02 tile Kav;; instalTations, instructiolis dated June 1968 required an evaluation form to be complctcd within 90 days a..fter co:,~plet ion of training. At the time of our review in I.959 ) however I no form had been developed for that purpose o Nestof the employees interviewed who had received training said that they had made no evaluations of the train- ing received and that they were not aware of 3ny evaluations’ being rnnde O MOr;t supervi sor s stated that they had eval.uateti the employees training but. that generally it had ken b> observation or discussion nnd had not been documented. The Fedc:?al Personnel Manual states that the official personnel folder of an irldividual will contain record:; of all trainin:; courses completed, e:;cept for sllort trnii-ij.ng periods that would have no bearing on the persons s employ- ment elsewhere 9 such as orientation training,, Tt nlso pro- vides that a record be in the folder for any peri.ocl of trail-l- ine, that exceeds 40 hours in non-Goverllment f acili tj es. Generally \:hen 311 the rcCylii:eZi trainins cou3:Scs \Jc’rc not being recorded in the official personnel folder it was the result of inadcqunte proccdurcs and controls, SOi:!r: c:,- ,amples of COYldi-ti.i3;1? YiOtcd fOllOW, 24 We noted that at Some locat ions foreign national. em- player2 s were required to execute service (cnlployme??t) agree- men ts under certain circumstances, For e:xmplc y at one lo- cation in the Pacific area, cm131oyees were required to cx- ecute :;crvicC agreements when at Lending Iloll-Governmc~ilt training of more than 30 hours or Government trnj l?i ng ill excess of 6 \,~C~?l<S o /a-t a location In Europe 9 WC wr?re advi :jed that tho’;e cr.;pl.o;~t?~,:; h7ho receiiied specialized sk~L?.!-s 26 From inf orniation obtained during our revic~:, it appears that the tra Ln ing is made avai.lablc to foreign national. cm- ployees undez the same policies and procedures as are a?- plied to U.S. civilian employees 0 LACK ----- 0” INTERMI, -..-- AUDITS AND I~~SPECTI.ONS ---- During our fieldwork WC noted that, T:Tith tile g>::cn_p Lioli of one installation, no inspections oi’ the civil ian trainin& program llad been made by the Commissi.on during ri seal- yc2ars 1968 and 196g0 At six of the 10 CO;;?.IS instal l.~i:iOil~~, tl-be most r-ecent irlspcction by the Com,nis.c;ion was in 1.9650 kA,t the ot:hci;- four CONUS instal.lations 9 i.he Commi :;::ion had per-- formed more recent inspections; howti\~cr I at only one :~;is the training function included as part of the rr:v:~:,;. A t: the foi;r civil ian pcrsonrlel offi cc’s outsic:e Lh:: Uili ted States r.:hcre we co~:cluctcd OUI: i~vhv~ thcrc !~cd Lc LJG 110 rc-- cent: i 1::;pection by the Coxriission t AS a rc:.;Lllt Of a review at a17 LilYifiy installation i.12 3.963 b:r reprcscnti-Itives of the Office of tile Deputb7 Cilia)? of StaLCf for Persollnel., action had been taken or was planned by officials at the installation on matter:; rc- lating to the identification of training needs azd to the invo:!.vemcrlt of managcrl!cnt in the trai.12i.ng p~-ogi-a~!~o AL a Navy installatLon a self-evaluation of the train- ing divi.sion was completed in July 1969 as the result of a program provided by the Office of Ci_vflian Han- power Nana~ernent D Tlaz review concluded that all ele- nicnts of training were adequate, At another Navy in- stallation a commnnd inspection v7as maple in April 1.969, <and the only s ip,n iZ icz.nt comxcnt rclat i:~e to cmplo),i-:c dc~~eiopn:cnt: WAS that a high number of empJ.oyees wcrc enrolled in off-duty, self-development CoLlrseSa Al - though the resul.ts of these two reviews leave the im- pression that the training program had no deficicn- ties, IX noted that, at both of these installations, the same weal-messes described in the Commission's re- views of several years ago continued to exist, Ne believe that there is a need for management to per- form reviews of the training program to provide for an eval- uation of th:: various segments of the progrcam, These can be heneflcial if a conscientious effort is made to evaiuate the results of operations in view of the established objec- tives, More frequent revie?:s, however, should also be made by the internal. auditors and the Commission to provide man- agcment with an evalu::tion of the training program by an activity indr?pencIcnt of the opcrst:i.on of the program, 28 The Secretary of Defense should take the necessary ac- tion to ---ensure that DOD Instruction 1430.5, prescribing poli- cies and standards for the conduct of training, is properly implemented, --ensure that adeql,ate proced[arcs and management con- tr01.5 are c:jt~~tlizhed for racording completed tr-ain- ing in the personnel files, and --promote increased emphasis on sur\~eillance of train- ing activitic3.s by the USC of management review groups, including interjla'l. auditors e The Chairmsn of the Civil Service Co:Gmiscion shoa!.d provide more freqlrent inspections of the training cactlivitics at military dcparti!!:zilLs and DGD neencies c 111 com!xnting 017 OUl‘ d?TTXfiI TcpOYl: (Set2 2pE) I I) ) t!lc Comm~snio;~ L;t;~:tcy-1tht the ;I!,:~c‘::c~ OT i.na<t~~,cj~ of train? 17g plans at various ins?allations 17a.3 ~LhClack of a system&k approach to training planning and management c In recogni- tion of this, the Commissi.ori is developing a Training Plan- ning and Pl~il2~,C’JT’.?l!t: Systt?m which is based on spf2ci.fi.c orga-- ni.zational miS:;i~ilS or o‘i;j cctives o This system will be av3i.i.abf.e for agencies to use as a model for dcvclcj~~~~~;lt of a tailor-made training plan, containing the specific objec- tives and training resources that will be necessary to meet the obj ectives 0 In regard to training evaluation, the Commission stated that both Govcrnaent and inc:ustry had long identified this as one of the most difficult problems they had to face. The Commission has undertaken the development of several guide- lines to assist the agei?cies in the training evaluation area. 29 or rating cittqi-nc:d) should be kpt in the officti:il per:;onn~l folder. DOD3 ho~~;iivcr2 questioned the a.ppropr<atener:s of maintaining; training rvnluntion records in the employee's official personnel folder, DOD believes that this inforwn- t ion i:5 intended primarily for the use of management and should be rcadi7.y available for assembly, st\~cly~ and analysis by manager:lent and the training staff. FJe agree with DOD's coxnents. It was not our intention to require th:lt trai.ning evaluation record:; be fiJed jn the erqg.oyee ss of.E!.ci;l per:;cn:,lel.. folder, Rx pre+. Ously stated in the report, tllcrc! has not been sufES cient foll.ow--up to ensure thi3t evaluati.onf; are prepared and Submittc4 SO that evrtl~~ation d;itn is available for consideration by manat;empnt O The Cc,nll~ission stated in its coww~~-is that we 1x2, 'sr~"o- ncot;sl.y cited the in-f-requcncy of inspectj.on a?- (.:c:r-l,?in DOD installnLion.5. The Ccrzlission stat4 also that they had con- ducted inspections at each of these installations after I-965 and that, exct-pt For two instaI.lations 9 the trninlng nctiv- ities had bce~l inspected during, or after 1.905. 'The Com- mission agreed that no recent inspections had 7,cen made at the four overseas installations, In suhsequcnt discu ssion with reprecentatives of the Comxissi 011 regarding the more recent inspections at the in-- st32lation:; we visited f we found tllat their inspect ioils either were IA,TCICi>f ter t:hc time of our review or h:id not speciEicr:.?_l.y cove3. ed the training items di.scusscd ill our re- p&t * The corrective actions indicated by the Conmi.ssj.on and DOB appear to be responsive to the condirions cited in our report e 31 cI.m’r -e-w ER r+ SCOPE OF REVIn Our review was directed prirnaryly toward the adminis- tratioil and operation of the training function at the instal- lation level. In performing our review, we exam!;lied appro- priate sections of the Federal Personnel Manual and DOD and installation regulations and instructions. In addition, we examined fiscal j'ear training reports and related records and intervicI*:ed selected employees and their sup-er\Tisors, training pei -cannel at the installations, and others conncctcd with various facets of the program. We discussed our findings wit'n appropriate installation officials responsible for the adlTini.stration and operation of the civili.cun training progrnm. We made rcvie~is zt thE foYLloT>zii-~ginstallations e Air Force: Electrorlic Systems Divisioll, L. G. Hanscorn Field, Massachusetts N@YLoil Air Force Base, California s ~:cr~!mento Air MaYerie Area, California 7101st Air Base Wing, \.Tiesl,aden, Germany Army: U. S . Army Aesonauticr;. 1 Depot Plaiiltenance Center 9 Texas Fort Ord, CaJ.ifornin Tooele Army Depot9 Utah U.S, Army, Japan U.S. Army, Ryukyu Islands U.S. Theater Army Area Support Command, Frankfurt, Germany Defense Supply Agency: Defense Cent;-act Administration Services Region, California Navy: Eoston Naval. Shipyard, Plassachusetts U.S. Naval Air Station, Corplls Christi, Texas Naval Undersea Research and Devclopmcnt Center, California 32 33 APPU?DIX I VJI\SHINGTON. D.C. 20415 r 21 SZP 1970 Nr. Charles Pl. Cailcy Director, Defense Divi:ion Fcncral AccountinG Office C’ashington, D. C. 205hH l- Dear Mr. Bailey: Ericloscd PL-c qpccific corr~rlents on four general subjecL srca categories which we identified in your report -- costs, plsns, cvaluatinn, and iusprctiori. Chai rlllan API’I~IlDIX I General 1, I_------ T1-nilljrli; ---Costs/Ej;-per!di _-- turcs --------I_- br~.-(,-l!t) - 3 7 t cili-rcntly being concl:ictcd by tl~e dPtermi.ning tile cost: of :intc*rndl wj.11 include tr;:inei> hourly \:ages and 10s t pr~jduc tiv i ty f,:c tors , which are the largest j.nternal training costs o In addition, the model will include such items as overhead costs, i.c,, building lcases or rentals, utilities, special facil i ties, cc,uj pment, etc. The finding that erroneous training expenditure reports result from inaccurate training cost bookkeeping is not surprising. However, we believe that t!ii~ -installation of more rigid bookkeeping systems would . only scrvc tc> cc)i!lpnuncl the pro131 cm, Typi tally 9 trai.njng pcrsnnncll. are not also ;:cccjuntn:lts or boo’t;i:c-pcrs, nor should they be. Yet, training pcrSanne1 are usually reapnnsible for mairltaining trai nin<q cost records for rcportin~ purposes, Therefore, in recognition of this prohlcm, cost and ~al.uc analysj s models we are now dcvcl.op<ng include a variety of simplified work sheets, tables, and guides which can be easily u?ed by training staff IQCIII~>C+I-S ~110 have not. had any prior- account.il>g or huokl,ccpi ng experience. Of courst:, n,gc’:-~cy brlcl;?c:t and f-inance perb~onncl will have to coop(‘rdte with t.hc i~rni ning staff in the idcntificrltion of any cost data elcmenfs that arc unique to a given agency0 In surn~!~nq , we l)::licve it possible to determine both trnining costs and benefits for use in planning, management, and reporting of training without t111: est-nhlishmcnt o[ rigid nccounting p3-ocedurcs -- provided that both tr:lining and Eillanc-ial mr 2 gcmcnt staffs wark closely together on ii regular b:\r;is, .%‘lle GAO report ) trroncously , cited the ii:freqrwncy of ins~~crtions at curtail, DOI) insi.a! 3 ;+i i.ons hy the COnmissFon. Specifical ly, CA0 stated 39 Kc have 9 in fact, cotiduc:tc~d i ilSpeCtj.OilS ::t each of tl~csc> inStnll3tions since 1’16.5 and, c:Xcopt for I370 ins tnilatl 01-1s, the tr.-aining actix7it.y has been inspcctcd during or si.nct> 1’165, hi thelmore ) three of the installa- the APPEND TX I . 44 IX 1 . l --- Tfmure of _office _.__.-_____- - -___ - ._.._-.-.I.- From To Tcr~urc of office _____--________-___ -‘l-0 Present Present Jan, 1963 Jidy L9G7 June 1967 Prc se11 t Feb, 1969 1J.q. r;,‘,O ,r’:i: I s, ., I>.(’
Improvements Needed in Management of Training Under the Government Employees Training Act
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-05-25.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)