oversight

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)

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>.(’