[Senate Hearing 106-682]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-682
TRAINING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO BE
THEIR BEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
RESTRUCTURING, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 18, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-087 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director
Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Akaka................................................ 11
WITNESSES
Thursday, May 18, 2000
Hon. John U. Sepulveda, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management..................................................... 5
Hon. Diane M. Disney, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Civilian
Personnel Policy, Department of Defense........................ 7
Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Management and
Workforce Issues, General Government Division, U.S. General
Accounting Office.............................................. 9
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Brostek, Michael:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Disney, Hon. Diane M.:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Sepulveda, Hon. John U.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Appendix
Prepared statements from:
Tina Sung, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Society for Training and Development....................... 61
Bobby L. Harnage, Sr., National President, American
Federation of Government Employees......................... 69
Thomas J. Mosgaller, Vice President, American Society for
Quality.................................................... 79
Hon. Deidre Lee, Acting Deputy Director for Management,
Office of Management and Budget............................ 85
Letter to Senator Voinovich from Bobby L. Harnage, National
President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 90
American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) responses to
questions...................................................... 93
TRAINING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO BE THEIR BEST
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
and the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich and Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The hearing will please
come to order. I want to thank all of you for coming. Today,
the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management will
discuss a critically important element in getting the
government to run at peak efficiency, and that is training
Federal employees to be their best. This is the sixth hearing
we have held as part of our effort to empower Federal employees
and address the human capital crisis now facing our Nation.
Our primary purpose today is to broadly examine the Federal
Government's commitment to train and educate its employees to
maintain their skills, enhance their performance, and ensure
they are able to keep pace with the ever-changing needs of the
American public. Just like incentives, training is a vital
component in making a world-class civil service. It is an
investment in the most important resource that we have, our
people, and the best way to ensure quality in government
programs.
The Federal Government employs nearly two million people in
thousands of offices worldwide. Regardless of occupation, there
are workplace trends that affect all Federal employees. For
example, I am concerned that some employees may not have the
necessary skills, particularly the high-technology skills, that
will be necessary to thrive in our technology-driven economy.
There is a realization across the government that
technology is transforming the private sector workplace at a
pace which government cannot currently match. Many of you might
be familiar with the initiative that was proposed by the
administration back in January to create a ``cyber corps'' to
bolster the government's ranks of highly skilled computer
experts. We must ask ourselves, does the Federal Government
have the strategic plan in place that will allow it to embrace
this workplace transformation, and if not, what do we need to
do?
These are extremely important and timely concerns. As many
of you have probably heard, there is a human capital crisis
confronting the government. By 2004, 32 percent of the Federal
workforce will be eligible for regular retirement and an
additional 21 percent will be eligible for early retirement.
Taken together, that is over 900,000 people.
If the economic expansion continues, the government will be
hard pressed to hire enough new workers to fill the shoes of
baby boomers who entered government service in large numbers in
the 1960's and 1970's. Today's college graduating senior is
less likely to enter government service than his counterparts
some 30 years ago. The Federal Government must act to counter
this trend by offering the training and incentives that will
make the Federal Government a more attractive place to work.
When I began to examine the management of human capital, I
asked my staff to obtain the training budgets of all Federal
agencies so that we could review the level of investment being
made in our employees. I was surprised to learn that neither
the Office of Management and Budget nor the Office of Personnel
Management collected this information.
Therefore, we went directly to the agencies for this
information. Through this survey, I discovered to my further
surprise that most Federal agencies do not have ``training
budgets.'' Rather, training money is dispersed throughout
agency budgets in operations or administration accounts. It
takes a great deal of effort on behalf of an agency to pull
this information together from the different parts of the
budget to present a complete picture of training activities.
It was my intention to ask the Office of Management and
Budget about this convoluted budget structure and their role in
setting agency training budgets. Unfortunately, I cannot ask
them these questions today. OMB informed the Subcommittee that
because of scheduling conflicts, they would be unable to
provide a witness today.
I think it speaks poorly of the management side of OMB that
they have so few senior officials versed in these issues that
testifying before the Management Oversight Subcommittee
presents a problem. This is the second management hearing--the
first was the Subcommittee's March 9 hearing on human capital--
to which they have not sent a witness.
I am not the only one on this Subcommittee that has
observed it is ``OB'' with no ``M,'' no management.
I would like to come back to the survey of training budgets
that the Subcommittee is conducting. Through this survey, we
hope to develop a more in-depth understanding of how training
budgets are formulated. If we identify any common weaknesses in
training activities, the Subcommittee may consider legislative
remedies.
I want to say at this time, in all fairness, that part of
the problem, I think, that the administration is having is that
Congress does not appreciate the importance of training,
incentives, quality, and some of the other things that are
important to human capital. When budget time comes around,
members say, ``Let us get rid of that, let us get rid of
them,'' and they just do not appreciate how important it is
that you have a good team.
My staff has met with officials from the eight agencies
which we have surveyed to date. They shared several
observations which, although not applicable to the whole
Executive Branch, are nevertheless illuminating. Almost all the
agencies said their employee training budgets were inadequate
and that they could use additional training funds. That is
probably a lay-up shot. [Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. When agencies undergo budget cuts,
training is almost always one of the areas hit first and
hardest. Costs such as administration, payroll, physical plant,
and benefit payments are either fixed and cannot be cut or are
mandatory expenditures.
As I mentioned earlier, most agencies spread their training
dollars throughout their budget. This is often done
intentionally so as to make it difficult for OMB or the
appropriations subcommittees to identify training money and
reprogram it. In other words, some agencies attempt to hide
their training money.
Historically, most agencies had decentralized training
activities. Several agencies are centralizing their training
activities to help identify training requirements.
Several of the agencies are unable to provide information
on their training budgets from previous years because their
recordkeeping is poor or nonexistent. This begs the question,
how can an agency plan its future training activities if it has
no reliable records on its past training activities? You have
to have some baseline to start with.
Some agencies find that they need much better management
succession programs so they can grow future leaders for their
agency.
Finally, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss
today's hearing in the context of the Subcommittee's overall
efforts and goals. Any of you that have followed this series of
hearings have heard me discuss the human capital crisis and
changing the culture of the Federal workforce and the
workplace.
Through six hearings since last July, the Subcommittee has
examined union-management partnerships, management reform
initiatives, incentive programs, and training, which is the
focus of today's hearing. Each issue is just one component in
building a world-class civil service, and each hearing has
built upon the last. There is an important synergy between
these elements, and if one is weak, the other components are
affected to the detriment of Federal employees and the people
they serve.
It has been our goal through these hearings to demonstrate
the synergy that exists throughout the Federal Government and
to stress that substantial change in all of the areas we have
covered in our hearings is necessary if we are to achieve real
and lasting improvements in government operations. At the
conclusion of these hearings, I hope the Subcommittee can issue
a report that will identify our findings and, most importantly,
recommendations that will correct years of inattention to our
human capital.
I understand that Senator Durbin is detained but will be
here and I expect that when he arrives he will have a statement
to make.
Our first panel today is composed of representatives from
the Executive Branch and the General Accounting Office. We have
with us today the Hon. John U. Sepulveda, who is the Deputy
Director of the Office of Personnel Management and will
describe OPM's role in setting training policies and how they
work with OMB in this regard.
The Hon. Diane M. Disney is the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and we have asked her
to describe how the Defense Department assesses its training
and technical requirements for its civilian workforce as well
as the culture of the Department, which stresses the importance
of training.
Michael Brostek is an Associate Director of Federal
Management and Workforce Issues at the U.S. General Accounting
Office, and has testified here before. We have asked Mr.
Brostek to discuss the importance of training in human capital
development.
Our second panel will provide us with a variety of
perspectives. First of all, we are lucky to have with us Bobby
L. Harnage, Sr. He is the National President of the American
Federation of Government Employees. He will provide us with the
perspective of Federal workers, the people who I call the ``A
Team.'' I am eager to learn if Federal workers think that the
training they are provided is adequate, and if not, what does
AFGE believe needs to be done to improve it and create an
environment in which workers can grow and do a better job of
serving their internal and external customers.
Then we have with us Thomas J. Mosgaller. He is the Vice
President of the American Society for Quality.
And Tina Sung, who is President and CEO of the American
Society for Training and Development. She is also the former
Director of the Federal Quality Consulting Group. We have asked
Mr. Mosgaller and Ms. Sung to discuss private sector education
and training practices and how the Federal Government compares
in general with leading private sector companies.
I want to thank all of you for coming this morning. We look
forward to your testimony. As is the custom of this
Subcommittee, I would ask all of you to raise your hands and
take an oath as to the voracity and truthfulness of your
statements, if you will stand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
before this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Sepulveda. I do.
Dr. Disney. I do.
Mr. Brostek. I do.
Ms. Sung. I do.
Mr. Harnage. I do.
Mr. Mosgaller. I do.
Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that all of the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Sepulveda, will you come up, and Dr. Disney and Mr.
Brostek? And it is pronounced Sepulveda?
Mr. Sepulveda. Sepulveda.
Senator Voinovich. Sepulveda. Pronouncing Sepulveda is like
Voinovich. It is tough to get, but once you get it, you will
not forget it.
Mr. Sepulveda. You are right.
Senator Voinovich. Again, I want to welcome you today. Mr.
Sepulveda, we look forward to your testimony. I would, just
before we get started, like to mention that I would appreciate
your keeping your remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Your
written testimony will become part of the record. In addition
to that, we would appreciate your entertaining some questions
that may not be raised here at the hearing so that we have a
better insight and a full picture.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN U. SEPULVEDA,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE
OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Mr. Sepulveda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of
the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to participate
in your continuing effort to assess and enhance the Federal
Government's commitment to training its employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Sepulveda appears in the Appendix
on page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me assure you that we share your firm belief that
Federal employees must have the training and education they
need to do their jobs and to meet the challenges of a rapidly
changing workplace. In fact, OPM is dedicated to ensuring that
agencies receive the guidance, tools, and leadership to deliver
the needed training to their employees and we already have in
place a strong foundation to deliver this assistance and are
interested in working with you to increase the efficiency and
the effectiveness of our efforts.
We recognize your concern that Federal employees may not be
getting the training and education they need to maximize their
talents and really make a difference in the lives of the
American people. We are working with the Office of Management
and Budget, other agencies, and Congress to build a world-class
workforce that can compete with the best that industry has to
offer.
The government's human resources, our people, are our most
valuable asset and we must nurture their potential and invest
in their development. Studies have shown that successful
corporations continually invest in their people. Like the
private sector, the government must consider employee training
and development an investment that helps us attract, develop,
retain the talented people we need to accomplish our missions.
Recognizing this, in January 1999, President Clinton
provided pivotal direction to government leaders in Executive
Order 13111 on using technology to improve training
opportunities for Federal employees. Our Director, Janice
Lachance, is the chair of that task force. The use of
technology in Federal training and education is increasing and
we expect it to increase even more as a result of the work of
the task force.
The task force members are identifying issues and options
and recommendations that will provide better and more
accessible learning opportunities through the use of
technology, and OPM, as I said, has been leading the task force
in this effort and we are collaborating with key stakeholders,
the Federal information, financial, and acquisition communities
to help them redefine their competencies and help them get the
kind of training they need to be effective. One of the major
strategic objectives is to lead the transformation of training
and development in the Federal Government to focus on
performance improvement and results which support agency
mission and goals.
OPM has two principal roles with respect to training of the
Federal workforce. The first is to set government-wide training
policies Federal agencies use to administer their own internal
training programs. The second is to provide executive
development and managerial training for the leaders who direct
the work of our more than 1.8 million employees.
What is important about this is that we want to emphasize
that continual learning for our current executives and
developmental opportunities for future executives are critical
for delivering agency results, and we view continuing
development not as an add-on for a successful executive but
what you have to do to be successful.
We will continue to meet our statutory mandate to approve
and monitor formal agency candidate development programs, which
is a concern that I am sure you have, that we need to have the
right training to develop the kinds of executives that we are
going to need in the future. We have been working with agencies
to develop candidate development programs, and, in fact, we
have 16 formal plans in place at this time and we are working
with agencies to develop other candidate development programs
to develop the talent that will begin to be available for those
agencies in the future.
When OPM privatized its training operations back in 1995,
we purposely held on to executive development because we
concluded that it was important for the Federal Government to
be responsible for providing the training to our executive
leadership to provide that public perspective and the skills
they need.
We are also working with our partners to develop an
Internet forum that will allow executives to have voluntary
mobility in different agencies and assignments in different
agencies to get the kind of experience, the broad-based
experience, to make them even more effective.
And we are considering a government-wide authority for
private sector exchanges which will allow Senior Executive
Service (SES) members to go into the private sector and get the
experiences and some best practices and come back into the
Federal Government and benefit the agencies that they are
working in.
Continuous investment in learning and development is
critical for improved government performance, and we recognize
that many Federal agencies need to do a better job of aligning
their learning and development initiatives with the strategic
direction of the agency. Many agencies are still struggling
with integrating human resources management goals and
objectives and strategies into their agency strategic plans.
Having recognized this problem, the President in his fiscal
year 2001 budget added a new priority management objective
which charges OPM with helping agencies to align Federal human
resources to support agency goals. Additionally, the Executive
Order charges every agency's strategic plan to identify
training and education as part of the strategic process. As
opposed to something you do after you develop your strategic
plan, it should be integrated in the development of your
strategic plan.
And, indeed, we have been working with OMB to make that
part of the budgetary process that it puts each and every
agency through, to have the information that they need to
assess whether or not agencies are, indeed, focusing training
as part of their strategic plan and, indeed, make them
accountable through the budgetary process.
We have other programs that allow us to develop the
training potential of our employees, including something that
came out of that Executive Order which is the individual
learning accounts, which essentially permit managers to put
into an account money or hours or both that will allow
employees to draw down from that account to get the kind of
training, whether it is provided within the government or
outside of the government, to get the kind of training they
need to be effective, and we are really excited. We have about
13 pilots underway and we want to see how feasible that
individual learning account program is.
In closing, again, we will obviously provide additional
information and answer any questions you may have about other
programs that we have going on to provide the kind of training
that is necessary to build that world-class workforce.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sepulveda. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Disney.
TESTIMONY OF DIANE M. DISNEY, Ph.D.,\1\ DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Disney. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am
very pleased to be here today to testify about the education
and training of employees in the Department of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Disney appears in the Appendix on
page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD is probably the premier organization for transforming
raw talent into highly competent performers. This excellence
stems in part from its unique structure and legal authority.
Because there is no lateral entry, anyone wishing military
advancement must develop higher order knowledge and skills
while in the service. The up-or-out system permits us to keep
only those who do the most for self-improvement. Also, under
Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the services can specify absolute
requirements for positions.
For civilians, the matters are less clear cut. Governed
primarily by Title 5, civilians are generally expected to bring
the necessary education and training with them. As a result,
the Department has long invested more in the military, whose
future it controls, than in the civilians, who are part of a
Federal-wide system. However, DOD is transforming its approach
to civilian education and training to focus on the idea of
investment rather than cost.
Let me set the stage. Since fiscal year 1989, DOD's
civilian employment has declined 37 percent. This has brought
an increase in the average age, increasing professionalization,
and improvement in educational levels. Outsourcing, base
closure, and technology have reduced the number of positions
requiring limited education and training. Simultaneously,
advanced technology, contract oversight, and a much more
complex mission demand more advanced education and capacity.
To add complexity, our country's low unemployment rate has
made competition for talent extremely difficult. Therefore, we
must invest more in training and education. To do so, we have a
four-part strategy:
First, research into what is happening and why; second,
careful accession management; third, development; and finally,
transition management for the smooth transmission of
institutional knowledge and the maintenance of capability.
We have conducted several studies to determine the
competencies that we will need in the future. Several broad
themes have emerged and are enunciated in my written testimony.
To fulfill these, DOD has been providing education and training
from both functional and component perspectives. For example,
Acquisition Technology, and Logistics has a policy of
continuous learning. Our intelligence community has assessed
its needs to develop a workforce with a community perspective
and strategic outlook. And another speaker today is going to
outline some activities within our Defense Finance and
Accounting Service.
Then there is our very special effort in management
development. In 1997, we created our Defense Leadership and
Management Program. This is our first systematic Department-
wide program to prepare civilians for key leadership positions.
It requires a rotational assignment, professional military
education at the senior level, and at least 10 advanced level
graduate courses in subjects important for defense leaders.
DLAMP has heightened awareness of the need for similar
investments in other areas. To that end, the Defense Science
Board's task force has strongly endorsed that we expand DLAMP
and recommended a preparatory program for the GS-9 through GS-
12 levels, and we intend to implement that recommendation. The
task force also urged legislative flexibility to permit payment
for degrees and certificates in relevant fields of study.
In addition, the military departments offer a range of
educational opportunities. The Air Force, for example, uses the
military model of life-cycle management for its centrally
managed, functionally led career programs. The Army also has a
centrally managed and funded system. About 40 percent of the
Army's civilians participate in the 22 occupationally oriented
career programs. Navy's operations are somewhat more
decentralized, but the focus still shifts over one's career
from the functional and technical to leadership development.
Beyond these, individual DOD offices sponsor seminars,
workshops, and short courses to meet specific needs.
In sum, then, DOD recognizes that the effective management
of human capital calls for a well-tuned program of training,
education, and development. That is why we are expressly
dedicating resources to investing in our civilian workforce.
That concludes my remarks and I will be pleased to answer
any questions that you have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Brostek.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BROSTEK,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Brostek. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
every time an agency changes how it does business, employees
need new skills. Changes in agencies' strategies for
accomplishing their missions changed during the 1990's and
likely will continue to change in the future. Thus, training
and retraining employees is critical to achieving meaningful
improvements in agencies' performance. In short, investing in
the people side of government, those who actually run the
programs, increases their capacity and the government's
capacity for high performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brostek appears in the Appendix
on page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes many agencies have been making in the way they
carry out their missions flow from a changing environment.
Technology is one driver of those changes. The IRS, for
instance, is moving from a paper to an electronic environment
and expects soon to have most taxpayers filing their forms
electronically. Recent and continuing downsizing also drove
change, with agencies consolidating operations, automating
processes, and often making more use of contractors.
There is little reason to believe that change is going to
stop. In this environment, poorly or inadequately trained
employees can hamper agency operations. For example, the
Federal Government spends tens of billions of dollars
purchasing goods and services every year. As early as 1972,
Congress recognized that the acquisition workforce was often
inadequately trained for this task, and in several statutes it
pressed to improve training. Yet earlier this year, we reported
that neither the General Services Administration nor the
Veterans' Administration could ensure that all members of the
acquisition workforces were receiving the core training and
continuing training that they needed. Inadequate workforce
training can put at risk the billions of dollars of
procurements that these agencies make.
High-performing organizations consistently take three steps
to design and implement training and development programs.
First, they identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities and
behaviors that employees need to support the mission and goals
of an organization and they determine to what extent their
employees possess those competencies. Second, they design
training programs to meet any identified gaps in competencies.
And finally, they evaluate the training programs that they do
have to ensure that they are actually increasing employees'
competencies and the organization's performance.
We collected information on how four agencies, the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Health Care Financing
Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the
Department of State, were addressing each of these steps. In
summary, we found that the glass was half full, or
alternatively, half empty for all of these steps.
For the first step of identifying any gaps in the
competencies of employees, the glass was half full in that all
the agencies recognize the importance of this fundamental step
and officials said they had identified competencies for all, or
more commonly some, of their workforce. It was half empty in
that efforts to define competencies were just getting underway
in some cases and were not planned in others.
For the second step of designing and delivering training
courses to address identified competency gaps, the glass again
was half full in the positive sense because all four agencies
at least had training curricula for employees in selected
occupations and training was being provided. The glass was half
empty in that such formalized training requirements generally
existed only for selected occupations, and due to limited
resources, some agency officials said they could not train all
employees that needed training.
For the final step, evaluating whether the training
provided did increase employee competencies, the glass was half
full again in that agencies generally assessed how satisfied
were employees with the training that they received, and one
agency had a more extensive evaluation system for certain
occupations. The glass was half empty because employee
satisfaction surveys that the agencies generally used are among
the least powerful tools for determining how successful
training is and because agencies are only beginning to develop
better evaluation tools.
One theme ran through our contacts with the agencies.
Officials said a lack of staff and resources were affecting
their ability to deliver training that they believed was
appropriate to develop and maintain the skills needed by their
workforce. This is a difficult issue that we did not have time
to assess in depth. However, in general, we believe agencies
need to make a business case for adequate training funds. That
is, they need to identify what training is needed and how that
training is likely to produce a return on the training
investment in terms of improved performance by individuals and
by the agency.
If agencies are unable to obtain what they believe to be
adequate resources through the appropriations process, they may
need to consider internal reallocations of resources to cover
their training needs.
In conclusion, training is at least as important now as it
has ever been to improving the performance of Federal agencies.
Recognition of the importance of training to high performance
seems to be growing within agencies, but agencies generally
make a case that they lack staff and other resources to provide
appropriate training. Resolving the resource issue will not be
easy, but must start with an informed analysis of training
needs based on the competencies that staff need to carry out
the mission of the agency. When training is provided, it should
be assessed to determine whether the training is indeed
improving performance.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
We have been joined by Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka, do you
have a statement that you would like to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank you very
much for having this hearing and for the opportunity to sit
with you and the Subcommittee as you continue this series of
hearings on the Federal workforce. As the Ranking Member of the
Federal Services Subcommittee, I have an obvious interest in
how the government empowers its employees to meet the
challenges of the 21st Century.
As the Chairman and our distinguished panelists know, the
Federal Government is at a human resources crossroads due to
downsizing, contracting out, flattened budgets, emerging
technologies, and an historically low unemployment rate.
Although training programs are critical to skills development,
Federal agencies were forced to cut back on training in the
past decade. There are hopeful signs, however, of a renewed
emphasis on training by the issuance of Executive Order 13111,
which requires agencies to use technology to improve training,
to these series of hearings.
I am sure most of you read last week's Washington Post on
the ``people crisis in the Federal Government.'' The six
articles brought into focus the changes facing the Federal
Government and its workforce. One piece in particular caught my
attention and that was how the number of clerical positions
have been cut by more than half in the last decade. Almost one
in seven Federal employees worked in predominately clerical
positions in 1989. The figure is now about one in 13.
However, clerical-type positions are in the top four new-
hire occupations, according to OPM. It is important that
secretarial and clerical employees who are called on to perform
a variety of roles be afforded training opportunities to
broaden their skills. Furthermore, as old clerical job skills
have evolved, there is a need to make sure these individuals
have new skills. It would be unfortunate to shortchange
training for line employees in the push to ensure development
and specialized training for executives and managers.
As a former school administrator, I firmly believe that
education and training are the anchor to a successful and
strong workforce. I am interested in looking at the legislative
proposals mentioned by Mr. Sepulveda, in his written testimony,
that would provide agencies with enhanced training
opportunities for Federal employees.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate joining you today
and I am hopeful that this hearing will shed new light on the
critical need to reinvest in training programs. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
I would like to put in a plug for something that, Dr.
Disney, we are trying to do, and that is our Department of
Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act, which Senator Akaka
may know a little something about. We have discovered on the
civilian side of the DOD that they have got some very, very
severe problems and don't have the flexibility to get the job
done.
We are hopeful that we can get Congress to pass it so that
you can have more flexibility to deal with the challenges that
you have in the Department of Defense. We tried to do that with
one agency last year and it was the feeling of my colleagues
that not only do we need it in Ohio, but we need it all over
the country in the civilian workforce. So, hopefully, we will
have some success with that, but there is no question that we
need to have a lot more flexibility in terms of how you retain,
hire, train, and all the other things that you need to have
that quality workforce.
I would like to ask all three of you the same question. Is
the Federal Government spending enough money on training? Mr.
Sepulveda.
Mr. Sepulveda. Let me take the first stab at that question
if I may, Mr. Chairman. I think it really is going to depend on
the individual department defining what their missions are,
what their specific programmatic goals are. I do not think you
can do that in a centralized or macro way. You have to do it
agency by agency. Each agency has to define what it is they
need in terms of competencies to meet their missions and then
begin to do the hard work of identifying the kinds of training
programs that they will need to have developed and then that
will lead to the kind of budgeting that is important.
That is why, again, the President's priority management
objective begins to lay down that foundation. It essentially
forces agencies as part of the strategic planning process to
identify their training needs and then has OMB work with them
in the budgeting process to identify appropriate resources.
Senator Voinovich. I applaud that effort. This is the
eighth year of the administration. My recommendation would be
that if you did anything for the next administration, that you
would really do everything in your power to identify and answer
the questions that I think Mr. Brostek made reference to--what
are the skills that are needed and what is the training that is
needed.
What talent are they going to need and how do you take the
talent that you have and get it up to where it should be. The
next group is going to have a very difficult task ahead of them
if they do not have it in the transition plans from the various
agencies. I went through that when I left the governor's job.
That is one of the best things that you could do for the future
of the Federal workforce.
Mr. Sepulveda. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report
that we have underway a major effort to develop a workforce
planning model we are hoping to have available to agencies by
the year 2001 and we are working on a prototype which is
essentially an automated system that will enable agencies to
use that model to identify the specific competencies they need
on an agency-by-agency basis.
And again, we have been working with the CFOs and the
information technology community in the Federal service, as
well as the acquisition community, the procurement people, to
identify what needs they have for training and competencies,
not just current needs but obviously needs in the near future.
We have made a lot of progress in those specific areas, so I am
happy to report that we have some efforts underway that I think
are going to be very helpful to agencies in the near future.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Disney.
Dr. Disney. If I could comment on that, I would like to
reference Senator Akaka's comments earlier. As a former
professor, I, too, think you can never spend enough on
education and training. Though I cannot speak for the other
agencies, I must go back to an earlier point, which is that the
Department of Defense has eliminated 420,000 civilian positions
in the past decade and is programmed to eliminate some 70,000
more. That means we have fewer people and these people are
charged with doing a mission that gets more complex every day.
That requires more investment in their education and training
than in the past, and that can be accomplished both through
increased dollars and through increased flexibility.
Senator Voinovich. We had a hearing on the National
Partnership for Reinventing Government, the emphasis of which
was saving money and cutting employees. When you cut 70,000
employees, it is like saying you are going to cut Medicare
expenses 15 percent each year. The issue is whether or not you
have the resources to get the job done, and it seems to me that
ought to be the major goal of the Department of Defense. What
do you need in terms of people in order to do the job? That
ought to be the standard and not we are going to get some high
marks because we have fewer government employees. Again, I know
you have some really severe problems in some serious areas, and
if you could get that list together, it would be very helpful.
Dr. Disney. Yes, sir. We are devoting a great deal of time
and energy to our workforce planning and to finding new ways of
investing in the people who are already there.
Senator Voinovich. I really think that you have two
problems here, attracting people into government and retention.
I think whether you retain or lose this 21 percent of employees
that could take early retirement is going to have a lot to do
with the work environment. If they see an environment where
they are not involved, if they see an environment where there
are no incentives, if they have an environment where there is
no training, then a lot of them are going to say goodbye, and
so I think that training is critical to just keeping those
people that we have on board.
Mr. Brostek.
Mr. Brostek. Well, first, I would like to agree with Mr.
Sepulveda. I think that the correct amount of training funds
will depend upon a business case analysis that each agency must
do for its training needs.
I would also go back to your own opening statement, Mr.
Chairman, where you noted how difficult it has been for you to
find out how much agencies are actually spending on training.
We do not have very good data to begin to make the assessment
of whether we have a shortfall. From the work that we did in
preparation for the hearing, we did have the consistent theme
in the people that we talked to in the agencies that they did
not feel they did have a sufficient amount of resources to do
appropriate training.
One of the interesting twists on that was that they
mentioned in more than one case that they did not have enough
depth in their line staff so that they felt comfortable taking
someone off of the line, away from the work that they were
doing on a daily basis, to train them. They did not have
somebody to backfill for the hole that was created.
A couple of other things. This is somewhat inconsistent
with the difficulty, I guess, that you found in trying to
determine how much agencies are spending on training, but the
Merit System Protection Board reported in 1995 that agencies
spent about 0.75 percent of their total budgets on training and
they contrasted that to about 10 percent of budgets being spent
by high-performing private organizations on training. So if
there is any merit to the figures that MSPB had, there is a
significant gap, or was at least in 1995, in the training
expenditures of the Federal Government versus high-performing
companies.
Senator Voinovich. What was the number on the high-
performing companies?
Mr. Brostek. About 10 percent of their budget, I believe,
is what MSPB reported. I do not know which companies they were
referring to, but that was the contrast that they drew.
The last thing I would like to say on the point is that
there may be some room within agencies' budgets to gain some
efficiencies in the spending of the current training dollars.
We did a report last year in the Department of Energy in which
we observed that there was a fair amount of duplication in the
creation of the same kind of training course in different
locations throughout that Department and we suggested that some
standardization of the courses might save training dollars and
free up some money that could be reallocated to more important
training needs.
Senator Voinovich. I know in the State Government, we had a
smorgasbord of training programs that could be accessed by all
State agencies, and rather than just have a training program
for one agency, we tried to identify some common things that
were needed in all agencies and give people the opportunity to
take advantage of them.
Mr. Sepulveda, can you identify the amount of money that is
available to a Federal worker right now for training?
Mr. Sepulveda. Again, that is going to be very difficult to
arrive at because each individual agency head has a
responsibility for determining what the training budget is for
his or her department, and since we do not get that information
consistently, it would be very difficult for us to even give
you an estimate. The reality is, as was mentioned in your
statement, in many cases, agencies have to make some hard
budgetary decisions based on resources made available to them,
and in many cases, they end up changing some of those
priorities. So it is difficult to say. I am certainly not in a
position right now to provide you that information.
Senator Voinovich. Would it be good if, in terms of the
budget preparation, you had a line item for training and it was
pit in the open where people can see it? We have been getting
information back that agencies are hiding training money
because they are afraid that it is going to be reprogrammed or
that Congress may come in and zap it out. Could you set some
standard and say that X percent of the budget would be used for
training so that there is no hiding of it?
Mr. Sepulveda. Again, that is why the discussions we are
having right now with OMB on making sure that the budgetary
guidance that they give out to all agencies for fiscal year
2002 would have the requirement that agencies identify up front
what resources they need for devoting to their strategic goals.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sepulveda, this morning's ``Federal Diary'' column
noted that 71 percent of the career Senior Executive Service
would be eligible for retirement in the year 2005. I was,
therefore, interested in your testimony which focused in part
on the need to train and develop the SES corps. Could you be
more specific on how the government would help future SES
members work in the private sector?
Mr. Sepulveda. You mean that proposal to have the exchange
that we are working on. We feel that Federal executives would
benefit greatly from an opportunity to serve, or do a
rotational assignment, if you will, in the private sector as
they are able to do now either within their agency or outside
of their agency, and that is a proposal that we are developing,
and hopefully with the approval of OMB, we can move that
forward.
But that is not the only thing that we have in our supply
of tools to address the succession issue that you are
mentioning. As I mentioned before, we have been working with
agencies to develop candidate development programs which would
allow them to identify executives who have the potential to
enter the Senior Executive Service and put them through a year-
long or in some cases 2-year-long training program so they will
be certified at the end of that program to enter the SES, to
compete for SES positions.
The other thing we do at OPM is that we are the agency that
oversees our Federal Executive Institute, which is the
training, it is the Harvard, if you will, of the Senior
Executive Service for Federal executives, and we have two
Management Development Centers. We train approximately 8,000
executives and managers each and every year at those two
Management Development Centers and at the FEI.
In addition, we have been working with Federal agencies
across the Federal Government, helping them to focus on their
succession issues, in other words, helping them to develop
internal programs to identify the leadership they will need to
have in place to be ready to walk into the job as other
executives begin to retire. So that has been part of our
strategy for the last several years and we are hoping that one
of the things that we could also do, as I mentioned before, is
have that proposal which will allow us to also have
opportunities for these executives to go into the private
sector and come back to the government with those skills.
Senator Akaka. I share with you your opinion about
government human resources. In your testimony, you said the
Federal workforce is an asset and that we must nurture their
potential and interests and their development so that we may
have better individuals and organizational performances. I want
you to know that I fully support providing cutting-edge
development and training opportunities, as we just talked about
with the Senior Executive Service. I know that OPM works
closely with all agencies in training programs; however, what
percentage of training budgets are generally spent on executive
and management training versus line employee training?
Mr. Sepulveda. I think that is going to be difficult for me
to be able to answer because, again, agencies will determine on
an individual basis the number of executives or potential
executives that need to be trained, the kind of training. They
will determine whether they send their executives to our
Federal Executive Institute or our Management Development
Centers or whether they send them to other institutions in the
private sector or in the university arena to get their
training.
Senator Akaka. How will agencies integrate their training
activities into their performance reports and who is providing
technical guidance in these efforts?
Mr. Sepulveda. As I mentioned earlier, Senator, we have
been working with OMB to set up that system, to set up that
structure that will allow the agencies to identify what their
needs are, identify their training strategies, and plug that
into the budgetary process and plug that into their performance
reports, as well. We are looking forward to having that out
through the OMB Circular A-11 fairly soon, and that will
identify specifically the process.
Senator Akaka. How much cross-training is done by agencies
that are located within the same geographical region?
Mr. Sepulveda. I think a lot of that is done, actually. We
have in our agency right now a member of the Department of
Labor Candidate Development Program and he is doing a rotation
in our agency for several months and then he will go off to
another agency. That happens all the time. So I think that is
part of the development process. We want to encourage agencies
to send their potential executives to other agencies to get
that broad-based experience.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Disney, you alluded to down sizing
which, of course, DOD has done. You said in your testimony that
jobs remaining in DOD require more advanced education and
training from those of the past. We know that the whole
structure of DOD is changing, so the job of education and
training, of course, is priority for you.
Dr. Disney, I was very interested in your explanation of
the differences between military personnel who enter at a low
level and work up the system and the civilian Federal workforce
who must have demonstrated skills, knowledge, and/or ability to
enter a specific job classification. It appears that DOD is
working to invest in its civilian population. What has been the
most promising training and development initiative, in your
opinion?
Dr. Disney. I believe that is clearly the establishment of
DLAMP, our Defense Leadership and Management Program, because
that is the first comprehensive Department-wide effort to
prepare people for key leadership positions, and these are at
the 14, 15, and SES levels. It is a comprehensive multi-year
effort, recognizing that people need advanced technical skills;
they need experience; they need graduate education. No one
thing by itself is sufficient.
It also recognizes that we can no longer afford to have
people in the very narrow stovepipes they were before. People
in acquisition need to know about labor relations. People in
personnel need to know how to read budgets. As we have fewer
and fewer employees, the ones we have must be able to have a
broader perspective and be able to understand more things than
in the past, and that is why DLAMP is, we think, a model for
the rest of government, and, in fact, it is becoming a model
for the defense ministries in other countries, as well.
Senator Akaka. Now that you have mentioned the model, could
this model be utilized by OPM in developing similar training
programs for non-defense Federal workers?
Dr. Disney. Well, certainly the concept of combining the
rotational assignments and the advanced education could be used
anywhere.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka, I have to interrupt. I am
so embarrassed. I am new to this place, and maybe you are
familiar with this. We have just received a call from the cloak
room informing us that we have to adjourn this hearing no later
than 11 o'clock under Rule 22. Committees or Subcommittees need
unanimous consent to meet 2 hours after we go into session. As
you know, Senator, there is usually no problem, but today your
party made a blanket objection, meaning that no Committee or
Subcommittee may meet after 11 o'clock.
So we have to adjourn now or else a point of order can be
raised against anything on the floor. This is new to me, but
are you familiar with this rule, Senator?
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We follow
the policies and the rules. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. So I am really embarrassed that we have
to adjourn this hearing. I want to say to the witnesses that
have come, some from out of State, that I apologize for your
not having an opportunity to testify today. I had looked
forward to asking more questions of our first panel here and
hearing from the second panel.
For whatever it is worth, for those that did not testify
today, I promise you that I will personally read your
testimony. I cannot guarantee that at every hearing, because as
you can well imagine, there is a lot of testimony that comes
in. But in this particular case, I want you to know that
because I have not had the chance to hear you, I will read your
testimony and it will be in the record. We will fold it into
the recommendations that we are going to make on how to improve
training, which is so very important to the future of our
Federal workforce.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statements of Ms. Sung, Mr. Harnage, Mr.
Mosgaller, and Ms. Lee appears in the Appendix on pages 61 thru 85
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We again thank the witnesses.
The Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6087.077
-