Department of Homeland Security: Strategic Management of Training
Important for Successful Transformation (23-SEP-05, GAO-05-888). 
                                                                 
Training can play a key role in helping the Department of	 
Homeland Security (DHS) successfully address the challenge of	 
transformation and cultural change and help ensure that its	 
workforce possesses the knowledge and skills needed to		 
effectively respond to current and future threats. This report	 
discusses (1) how DHS is addressing or planning to address	 
departmentwide training and the related challenges it is	 
encountering; (2) examples of how DHS training practices,	 
specifically those related to planning and evaluation, reflect	 
strategic practices; and (3) examples of how DHS uses training to
foster transformation and cultural change.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-888 					        
    ACCNO:   A37940						        
  TITLE:     Department of Homeland Security: Strategic Management of 
Training Important for Successful Transformation		 
     DATE:   09/23/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Employee training					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Training utilization				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Organizational change				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-888

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee onGAO Oversight of Government
Management, the

Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security
                     and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

September 2005

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

    Strategic Management of Training Important for Successful Transformation

                                       a

GAO-05-888

[IMG]

September 2005

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Strategic Management of Training Important for Successful Transformation

  What GAO Found

DHS has taken several positive steps toward establishing an effective
departmentwide approach to training, yet significant challenges remain.

Progress made in addressing departmentwide training issues, but efforts
are still in the early stages and face several challenges.

Actions taken by DHS include issuing its first training strategic plan in
July 2005, establishing training councils and groups to increase
communication across components, and directly providing training for
specific departmentwide needs. However, several challenges may impede DHS
from achieving its departmental training goals. First, the sharing of
training information across components is made more difficult by the lack
of common or compatible information management systems and a commonly
understood training terminology. Second, authority and accountability
relationships between the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and
organizational components are not sufficiently clear. Third, DHS's
planning may be insufficiently detailed to ensure effective and
coordinated implementation of departmentwide training efforts. Finally,
according to training officials, DHS lacks resources needed to implement
its departmental training strategy.

Examples of planning and evaluation of training demonstrate some elements
of strategic practice. Specific training practices at both the component
and departmental levels may provide useful models or insights to help
others in DHS adopt a more strategic approach to training. We found that
some components of DHS apply these practices, while others do not. For
example, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aligns training priorities
with strategic goals through planning and budgeting processes. In the area
of evaluation, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center obtains
feedback from both the trainee and the trainee's job supervisor to inform
training program designers in order to make improvements to the program
curriculum.

Training has been used to help DHS's workforce as it undergoes
transformation and cultural change. The creation of DHS from different
legacy organizations, each with its own distinct culture, has resulted in
significant cultural and transformation challenges for the department. At
the departmental level, one of the ways DHS is addressing these challenges
is by encouraging the transformation to a shared performance-based culture
through the implementation of its new human capital management system,
MAXHR. DHS considers training to be critical to effectively implementing
this initiative and defining its culture. Toward that end, the department
is providing a wide range of training, including programs targeted to
executives, managers, and supervisors. For example, at the component
level, CBP has developed cross-training to equip employees with the
knowledge needed to integrate inspection functions once carried out by
three different types of inspectors at three separate agencies.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
DHS Has Made Progress in Addressing Departmentwide Training

Issues, but Challenges May Impede Its Efforts

DHS's Approach to Planning and Evaluation of Training Demonstrates Some
Elements of Strategic Practice, but Is Still Evolving

DHS Has Used Training in an Effort to Help Its Workforce as the

Department Undergoes Transformation and Cultural Change Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Comments

                                       1

                                      2 5

11

28

35 37 38 38

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II~"One Face at the Border" Training at U.S. Customs and Border
Protection

Appendix III~Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

  Table

Table 1: Responsibilities and Selected Training Characteristics of DHS
Components Included in Our Review

  Figures

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure 10 Figure 2: Departmental Training
Councils and Subgroups at DHS 17 Figure 3: Timeline for MAXHR Training
Scheduled Through the End

of 2005 21 Figure 4: Levels of Training Evaluation 31 Figure 5: DHS
Components Included in Our Review 41

Abbrevations

ADL Advanced Distributed Learning
ADLG Advanced Distributed Learning Group
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CHCO Chief Human Capital Officer
CIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
FTE full-time equivalent
HPT Human Performance Technology
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
LTDG Leadership Training and Development Group
NTEP National Training Evaluation Program
SES Senior Executive Service
TLC Training Leaders Council
TSA Transportation Security Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

September 23, 2005

The Honorable George V. Voinovich
Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Addressing an organization's culture-that is, its underlying assumptions,
beliefs, values, attitudes, and expectations-is at the heart of any
serious
organizational transformation or change management initiative. As the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strives to protect the nation from
terrorism, it faces significant challenges in transforming from 22
separate
agencies and programs to a single coordinated department, requiring the
integration of approximately 180,000 employees as well as multiple
management systems and processes. In recognition of these challenges,
we have designated the implementation and transformation of the
department as high risk.1

Training and development can play a key role in helping DHS successfully
address the challenge of transformation and cultural change and help
ensure that its workforce possesses the knowledge, skills, and
competencies needed to effectively respond to current and future threats.2
In addition, a strategic approach to the management of training can help
to
effectively target limited resources and further the achievement of its
organizational goals. To this end, our framework for assessing training

1 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January
2005).

2 In previous GAO reports we have defined "training" as making available
to employees planned and coordinated educational programs of instruction
in professional, technical, or other fields that are or will be related to
their job responsibilities. Similarly, we have defined "development" to
generally include aspects of training, as well as structured on-thejob
learning experiences (such as coaching, mentoring, or rotational
assignments), and education. For the purposes of this report, "training"
will be used as a shorter substitute for "training and development."

management provides a way for DHS to recognize and develop such an
approach.3

You asked us to examine how DHS, as a federal agency undergoing
transformation, uses training to help achieve its organizational goals. In
response to your request, this report discusses (1) how DHS is addressing
or planning to address departmentwide training and the related challenges
it is encountering; (2) examples of how DHS training practices,
specifically those related to planning and evaluation, reflect strategic
practices; and (3) examples of how DHS uses training to foster
transformation and cultural change.

To achieve our objectives, we reviewed internal training at both the
departmental and component levels, focusing on the systems and processes
in place to manage, plan, and evaluate training for DHS's workforce. To
this end, we analyzed training, management, and planning documents and
interviewed numerous officials responsible for training issues in the
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO office) and at six
organizational components collectively responsible for training 95 percent
of the DHS workforce. To determine whether DHS used a strategic approach
in managing, planning, and evaluating its training activities, we drew on
our previous work regarding strategic planning and effective management
practices, as well as criteria contained in our guide for assessing
strategic training and development efforts in the federal government. We
recognize that DHS provides a significant amount of training to external
audiences, such as state and local governments; however, given the nature
of your request and interest in examples of how DHS is using training to
foster its organizational transformation, we did not include training
intended for audiences external to DHS within the scope of our review. For
more information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted our work from November 2004 through July 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief	DHS has made progress in addressing departmentwide
training issues, but these efforts are still in the early stages and
challenges may impede these

3 GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004).

efforts. Thus far, DHS has taken several steps toward establishing a
departmentwide approach to training, including the following:

o  	DHS has issued its first training strategic plan providing a strategic
vision for departmental training. It used a collaborative and inclusive
process to develop the plan, consulting with component training leaders
and others.

o  	It also has established training councils and groups with the goal of
increasing communication across components and fostering greater
collaboration and coordination.

o  	Finally, it has provided training targeted to address specific
departmentwide needs. Examples of areas where DHS has directly provided or
supported training on the departmental level include (1) implementation of
MAXHR, DHS's new human capital management system;4 (2) leadership
development; and (3) civil rights and liberties.

However, we identified four challenges that may impede the department from
achieving departmental training goals. First, the sharing of training
information across components is hampered by the lack of a common or
compatible information management infrastructure and the absence of a
commonly understood terminology. Officials told us that the lack of
compatible information technology systems complicated their efforts to
make the most efficient use of training resources across components.
Second, authority and accountability relationships between the CHCO office
and the organizational components are not sufficiently clear. A clear and
agreed-upon understanding of the specific responsibilities and authorities
of the key organizations involved in training should significantly improve
DHS's ability to effectively implement its training strategies. The
department recognizes this need to clarify the responsibilities and
authorities of the CHCO office and the components and has addressed this
need in its training strategic plan. Third, DHS's planning may be
insufficiently detailed to ensure effective and coordinated implementation
of departmentwide training efforts. Because they share authority for
training, the department and the components need to develop detailed
implementation plans to help ensure that departmentwide training
initiatives are coordinated and effectively implemented. Fourth, according
to training officials, DHS lacks resources needed to implement its
departmental training strategy.

4 According to DHS, the name MAXHR was chosen to convey the intent of the
new system to foster "maximizing results, rewarding excellence." MAXHR
covers key human capital areas, including pay, performance management,
classification, labor relations, adverse actions, and employee appeals.

While still evolving, some of DHS's training practices at both the
component and department levels demonstrate strategic elements in the
areas of planning and evaluation and may provide useful models or insights
to help others in DHS adopt a more strategic approach to training. We have
reported previously that as part of the planning process, agencies
demonstrating a strategic approach to training align their training
efforts with overall organizational strategic priorities; some components
of DHS apply these practices, while others do not. U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), for example, employs practices intended to align
training priorities with strategic goals through planning and budgeting
processes. The U.S. Coast Guard also demonstrates a strategic approach by
using a process for determining whether training is the appropriate
intervention to address a specific performance problem.

With respect to evaluation, we have reported that agencies demonstrating a
strategic approach to training employ a variety of practices, such as
systematically evaluating training, actively incorporating feedback during
training design, and obtaining feedback from multiple perspectives.
Several components and programs we examined at DHS demonstrate these
practices, while others do not. For example, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) obtains feedback from both the trainee and the
trainee's job supervisor to inform training program designers making
improvements to the curriculum. CBP and the CHCO office also use various
strategies to evaluate training programs and take appropriate actions.

DHS also has used training to help foster transformation and cultural
change as the department moves from multiple distinct organizational
cultures to a new culture that endeavors to be increasingly integrated and
performance focused. This is not an easy process, and the creation of DHS
from 22 different agencies and programs has resulted in considerable
cultural and transformation challenges. At the department level, DHS has
addressed these challenges by encouraging the transformation to a shared
performance-based culture through the adoption of a new human capital
management system, known as MAXHR. As an essential part of implementing
this initiative, DHS developed targeted training for executives, managers,
and supervisors, providing these groups with the tools and information
needed to champion the benefits of a performancebased culture and
successfully implement MAXHR in their components. In another example, this
time at the component level, in order to improve coordination and
communication across inspection functions and enhance flexibility of the
workforce, CBP created the new positions of CBP officer and CBP
agriculture specialist. Cross-training of employees in these new

positions helped CBP to integrate the inspection functions of three former
agencies. In addition, CBP designed and piloted a training module that
specifically targeted how supervisors could more effectively understand
the value and perspective of staff coming from legacy organizational
cultures.

To help DHS further establish and implement an effective and strategic
approach to departmental training, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security take the following actions: (1) adopt additional good
strategic planning and management practices to enhance the department's
training strategic plan by creating a clearer crosswalk between specific
training goals and objectives and DHS's organizational and human capital
strategic goals and developing appropriate performance measures and
targets; (2) clearly specify authority and accountability relationships
between the CHCO office and organizational components regarding training,
as a first step toward addressing issues DHS has identified for fiscal
year 2006; (3) ensure that the department and component organizations
develop detailed implementation plans and related processes for training
initiatives; and (4) when setting funding priorities, give appropriate
attention to providing resources to support training councils and groups
to further DHS's capacity to achieve its departmentwide training goals.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security
for comment. DHS generally agreed with our recommendations. The department
provided technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate. DHS's
written response is reprinted in appendix III.

                                   Background

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS, bringing together 22
agencies and programs responsible for important aspects of homeland
security.5 The intent behind the creation of a single department was to
improve coordination, communication, and information sharing among these
previously separate entities, thereby increasing their effectiveness in
protecting the nation's security. Each of these organizations brought with
it the capacity and expertise to provide training for its particular
aspect of homeland security. For example, in several cases such as the
Coast Guard and FLETC, this training capacity, as well as the management
systems supporting it was transferred intact with the creation of the new

5 Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).

department. In other cases, such as CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), the training functions of legacy organizations were
merged. Table 1 presents information on selected training characteristics
of components in our review, including the origin of each component's
training function. In addition, the Act led to the creation of the CHCO
position in DHS responsible for, among other human capital topics,
oversight and planning of the training of employees.6 The CHCO, who
reports directly to the department's Under Secretary for Management, has
primary responsibility for defining and developing the department's role
regarding training. Figure 1 depicts these positions as well as the
department's major components in the context of DHS's overall
organizational structure.

Training both new and current staff to fill new roles and work in
different ways will play a crucial part in the ability of federal
departments and agencies, such as DHS, as they work to successfully
transform their organizations. In 2004, we issued an assessment guide that
introduces a framework for evaluating the management of training in the
federal government.7 As presented in our guide, the training process can
be segmented into four broad, interrelated phases: (1) planning/front-end
analysis, (2) design/development, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation.
For each of these phases, we summarize key attributes of effective
training programs and offer related issues and questions. Using this
framework, this report identifies selected strategic training practices,
with a focus on the planning and evaluation phases, that may offer an
opportunity for others in DHS to build on experiences and practices
discussed below.

6 This section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, also known as the
Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, led to the creation of chief
human capital officers in each federal department. Pub. L. No. 107-296,
S:S: 1301-1305 (Nov. 25, 2002).

7 GAO-04-546G.

     Table 1: Responsibilities and Selected Training Characteristics of DHS
                       Components Included in Our Review

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)

10,207 FTEs

Overview of component responsibilities

o  	Administer immigration and naturalization adjudication functions,
including immigrant visa petitions, naturalization petitions, and asylum
and refugee applications

o  Establish and administer policies for immigrant services and benefits

Selected characteristics of training

o  	Training function was transferred from former Immigration and
Naturalization Service with the exception of law enforcement and soft
skills training

o  Conducts extensive field training through district offices and service
centers

o  Operates CIS Academy at FLETC site in Glynco, GA, for basic training of
new employees

o  Provides refresher training for adjudicators at field sites

o  	Supervisory training provided by ICE's Leadership Development Center
in Dallas, TX, through a shared services agreement between CIS, ICE, and
CBP

U.S. Coast Guard

46,847 FTEs

Overview of component responsibilities

o  	Protect the public, environment, and U.S. economic interests in
nation's ports, waterways, coasts, and international waters

o  	Specific responsibilities include: Maritime safety (e.g., search and
rescue), maritime mobility (e.g., aids to navigation and waterways
management), protection of natural resources, maritime security (e.g.,
drug interdiction), and national defense

Selected characteristics of training

o  	Training function transferred as a whole along with the rest of the
Coast Guard from Department of Transportation

o  	Operates multiple training programs for (1) indoctrination for new
employees, (2) apprenticeship after indoctrination course is completed,
and (3) specialized skills (e.g., law enforcement inspections)

o  Operates special leadership training program at Leadership Development
Center, New London, CT

o  Uses some Department of Defense training courses for specialized skills

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

40,761 FTEs

Overview of component responsibilities

o  	Protect U.S. borders from terrorism, at and between official ports of
entry, and foster legitimate trade and travel

Selected characteristics of training

o  Training function structure and processes largely carried over from
former U.S. Customs organization

o  	Basic CBP officer training provided at CBP Academy at FLETC site in
Glynco, GA, and basic CBP agricultural specialist training at CBP Academy
at U.S. Department of Agriculture-Professional Development Center in
Frederick, MD

o  Provides basic Border Patrol training at Border Patrol Academy in
Artesia, NM

o  Provides extensive field training at ports throughout the United States

o  	Supervisory training provided at ICE's Leadership Development Center
in Dallas, TX, through a shared services agreement between CIS, ICE, and
CBP

Federal Law Enforcement Overview of component responsibilities
Training Center (FLETC)  o  Train and prepare law enforcement
professionals across government

959 FTEs Selected characteristics of training

o  Training function transferred as a whole from Department of the
Treasury with formation of DHS

o  Consolidates law enforcement training at five FLETC academies for
multiple DHS components

o  	FLETC budget covers most of the basic training provided to DHS
components; auxiliary costs, such as room and board, are reimbursed by
components

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

14,950 FTEs

Overview of component responsibilities

o  	Prevent acts of terrorism by targeting people, money, and materials
that support terrorist and criminal activities focusing on the nation's
border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security

Selected characteristics of training

o  	Training function partly carried over from legacy Immigration and
Naturalization Service and legacy Customs Inspections and includes a
separate training organization for the Federal Protective Service

o  	Federal Protective Service trains its uniformed officers at FLETC site
in Glynco, GA, and ICE Academy is located at same FLETC site

o  	ICE's Leadership Development Center in Dallas, TX, provides supervisor
and manager training for multiple DHS components

U.S. Secret Service

6,526 FTEs

Overview of component responsibilities

o  Protect the President and other designated personnel

o  Protect the country's currency and financial infrastructure

o  Provide security for designated national events Selected
characteristics of training

o  	Training function transferred as a whole along with the rest of the
Secret Service from Department of the Treasury

o  	Trains both special agents and uniformed law enforcement officers with
most instruction taking place at Rowley Training Center in Beltsville, MD

o  Basic training for new employees takes place at FLETC site in Glynco,
GA

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

52,467 FTEs

Overview of component responsibilities

o  Protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of
movement for people and commerce

Selected characteristics of training

o  	Training function greatly expanded after transfer from Department of
Transportation with formation of DHS; separate training organization in
place for the Federal Air Marshal Service, which was recently transferred
as a result of DHS's Second Stage Review

o  	Some training delivered through TSA headquarters office in Arlington,
VA, which also oversees contracted training activities through its quality
assurance unit

o  Most training delivered in field (airport) sites through contractors
and approved instructors

o  Operates an academy in Artesia, NM, and an academy at the FLETC site in
Glynco, GA

o  	Federal Air Marshal Service trains new hires at an initial program in
Artesia, NM, and then they receive specialized training in Atlantic City,
NJ; Federal Air Marshal Service field offices also conduct ongoing
training

Sources: GAO presentation of DHS information and the President's Fiscal
Year 2006 Budget.

Note: Figures showing full-time equivalents (FTE) for components reflect
FTEs listed under "current services" from the President's Fiscal Year 2006
Budget.

The results of a governmentwide survey conducted by the Office of
Personnel Management in 2004 on human capital practices and employee
attitudes suggest that efforts to identify and build upon examples of good
training practice within DHS may be particularly relevant.8 For each of
the eight questions in the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey that focused
on training related topics, the percentage of DHS respondents providing
positive responses (typically the top two options on a five-point scale)
was lower than the governmentwide average. In fact, the DHS response
ranged from 5 to 20 percentage points lower than the governmentwide
average for the same questions. For example, 54 percent of respondents at
DHS indicated that they received the training they needed in order to
perform their jobs, compared to 60 percent governmentwide. Half (50
percent) of DHS respondents said that they were either satisfied or very
satisfied with the training they received for their present jobs, as
opposed to 55 percent that expressed these levels of satisfaction
governmentwide. The largest difference involved having electronic access
to learning and training programs, where 51 percent of DHS respondents
responded positively, compared to 71 percent governmentwide. A DHS
official told us that the department is aware of the challenges reflected
in these data and is currently exploring options with the Office of
Personnel Management to conduct further analysis. The aim of this work
would be to identify areas where DHS might target additional attention as
well as provide a baseline for future attitude measures.

8 According to the Office of Personnel Management, both the survey's
governmentwide findings and DHS-specific findings are generalizable to
their respective populations. For additional findings from the 2004
Federal Human Capital Survey on these and other training and
non-training-related questions, see www.fhcs2004.opm.gov.

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure

Source: GAO presentation of DHS information.

Note: This organization chart shows the expected end state resulting from
a reorganization announced by the department in July 2005 at the
conclusion of DHS's Second Stage Review process.

  DHS Has Made Progress in Addressing Departmentwide Training Issues, but
  Challenges May Impede Its Efforts

DHS has made progress in addressing departmentwide training issues and
these efforts reflect some of the elements of a strategic approach toward
training as described in our previous work.9 Most training-related
activities at DHS-such as planning, delivery, and evaluation-primarily
take place at the component level and relate to mission issues. Therefore,
any successful approach regarding departmentwide training issues will
require the concerted and coordinated efforts of multiple components
within DHS as well as the ability of the CHCO to effectively lead a
network of different training organizations. The department's current
efforts, although promising, are still in the early stages and they face
significant challenges. Unless these challenges are successfully addressed
they may impede DHS's ability to achieve its departmentwide training
goals.

    DHS Recently Developed a Departmental Training Strategy

DHS recently developed a coordinated departmental training strategy that
supports broader human capital and organizational goals and objectives. We
have previously reported that effective organizations establish clear
goals with an authority structure able to carry out strategies and
tactics, that is, the day-to-day activities needed to support the
organization's vision and mission. By so doing, a well-designed training
function can be directly linked to the organization's strategic goals and
help to ensure that the skills and competencies of its workforce enable
the organization to perform its mission effectively.

DHS's department-level training strategy is presented in its human capital
and training strategic plans. Issued in October 2004, its human capital
strategic plan includes selected training strategies, such as developing a
leadership curriculum to ensure consistency of organizational values
across the department and using training to support the implementation of
the new DHS human capital management system, MAXHR. In July 2005, DHS
issued its first departmental training plan, Department of Homeland
Security Learning and Development Strategic Plan, which provides a
strategic vision for departmentwide training. This plan is a significant
and positive step toward addressing departmentwide training challenges.
The plan identifies four short-term goals for fiscal year 2006 and one
long-term goal for fiscal years 2006 through 2010. Among the short-term
goals are such tasks as defining the scope of training activities and
improving the governance process between the CHCO office and individual
organizational components, supporting the rollout of MAXHR,

9 GAO-04-546G.

identifying/implementing best practices, and addressing specific concerns
regarding DHS's training facilities and advanced distributed learning
studies. The plan also articulates a long-term goal for DHS to "become a
recognized world-class learning organization where managers and
supervisors effectively lead people."

Each of these goals is followed by supporting strategies and tactics. For
example, to achieve its goal of ensuring the best use of training
resources through the identification and implementation of best practices,
the plan identifies specific strategies, one of which is to improve the
awareness of ongoing DHS training activities among organizational
components. This strategy is, in turn, supported by still more specific
tactics such as developing a site on the DHS Interactive system to
facilitate the sharing of information across the training community.

More significant than the fact that DHS issued a training strategic plan
document is the fact that DHS followed an inclusive and collaborative
process while developing it. We have previously reported that for
highperforming, results-oriented organizations, a strategic plan is not
simply a paper-driven exercise or onetime event, but rather the result of
a dynamic and inclusive process wherein key stakeholders are consulted and
involved in the identification of priorities and the formation of
strategies.10 When creating its plan, DHS consulted training leaders at
components throughout the department, in addition to others, to help
develop and review its content. Several training leaders we spoke with
thought highly of this process and the extent to which it provided them
opportunities to contribute and comment on the draft plan.

DHS has made considerable progress in addressing departmentwide training
issues through the development of its first training strategic plan.
However, there are areas where future efforts can be improved.

Linkage to DHS organizational and human capital strategic plans.

Our past work on strategic planning and management practices shows that
effective strategic plans describe the alignment between an agency's
longterm goals and objectives and the specific strategies planned to
achieve them. Clearly linking training tactics with particular
organizational objectives creates a direct line of sight that can both
facilitate the ability of

10 GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).

staff to work toward mission goals and enable stakeholders to provide
meaningful oversight. In the introduction to the DHS training strategic
plan, the department's CHCO highlights the value of this practice stating
that "the key purpose of [the] plan is to align our education, training
and professional development efforts with the President's Management
Agenda and the Department's vision, mission, core values and strategic
plan."

The DHS training strategic plan contains examples of goals, strategies,
and tactics that align with and support goals found in the department's
human capital and organizational strategic plans; however, these linkages
are never actually identified or discussed in the plan itself. For
example, the DHS training strategic plan contains a goal and several
tactics related to MAXHR training. These, in turn, support a MAXHR goal
and strategy in the department's human capital strategic plan as well as
the "organizational excellence" goal of the DHS strategic plan. However,
the training strategic plan does not show these linkages. Identifying such
linkages, either in the training plan itself or in an appendix, would more
clearly communicate to both internal and external stakeholders the
connections and justifications for specific training goals, strategies,
and tactics.

DHS's own human capital strategic plan provides an illustration of one way
to communicate linkages between goals and strategies contained in the plan
and the broader organizational goals they are intended to support. For
example, in an appendix, the DHS human capital strategic plan contains a
matrix that directly links strategies, such as developing a new Senior
Executive Service (SES) performance management system, with specific
objectives contained in the DHS strategic plan as well as the President's
Management Agenda human capital standards for success.

Usefulness of performance measures. We have previously reported several
key characteristics of effective strategic and management plans, including
the need for performance measures.11 Appropriate performance measures
along with accompanying targets are important tools to enable internal and
external stakeholders to effectively track the progress the department is
making toward achieving its training goals and objectives. To this end,
organizations may use a variety of performance measures-

11 GAO, Managing for Results: Next Steps to Improve the Federal
Government's Management and Performance, GAO-02-439T (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 15, 2002).

output, efficiency, customer service, quality, and outcome-each of which
focuses on a different aspect of performance.

The DHS training strategic plan contains few specific performance measures
for its goals or strategies and all of these are output measures. For
example, the plan makes use of output measures in its requirement that
certain actions, such as the development of a new management directive or
the chartering of a team, be completed by the end of fiscal year 2006, and
in establishing a deadline for when reports need to be completed in order
to be included in the 2007 plan. In contrast to output measures like
these, which gauge the level of activity or effort by measuring whether a
particular thing is produced or service performed, other types of
measures, such as measures of customer satisfaction or program outcomes,
focus on the impact or results of activities. By appropriately broadening
the mix of measures it uses and more clearly identifying targets against
which DHS can assess its performance, DHS can improve the usefulness of
its plan. After we completed our audit work, DHS training officials
informed us that they decided to delay the development of performance
measures until the rollout of the plan, when they could be developed by
individual teams, as needed. They subsequently informed us that these
teams will be held accountable to establish further performance measures
that are outcome based and results oriented.

DHS's human capital strategic plan again provides an illustration of how
the department's training strategic plan might begin to work toward the
inclusion of different types of performance measures. For example,
accompanying the strategy that DHS assess the feasibility of establishing
a 21st Century Leadership Training and Development Institute, the plan
identifies two performance measures-customer satisfaction and cost of
delivery-along with specific targets for each. For the customer
satisfaction measure, the plan establishes a target of 4.5 on a scale from
1 to 5. The plan also includes specific tactics to achieve the strategy,
such as developing and obtaining cross-organizational support, developing
measures and methodologies for leadership training, and implementing a
learning management system, along with key milestone dates for completing
them.

The department may benefit from considering the experiences of leading
organizations regarding the development of results-oriented performance
measurement. In general, results-oriented organizations we have studied
that were successful in measuring their performance developed measures
that were

o  	tied to program goals and demonstrated the degree to which the desired
results were achieved,

o  	limited to the vital few that were considered essential to producing
data for decision making,

o  responsive to multiple priorities, and

o  responsibility linked to establish accountability for results.12

Similar to the consultative process DHS followed when developing the goals
and strategies contained in its training strategic plan, decisions
concerning the selection of an appropriate set of performance measures
should also be based on input from key stakeholders to determine what is
important to them when assessing the department's performance regarding
training. Clear and appropriate performance measures, developed in this
way, can also provide DHS with valuable information, especially
significant in the current fiscal environment, when it seeks to justify
requests for resources from Congress.

    Training Councils and Groups Created by DHS Increase Communication across
    Components

Under the overall direction of the CHCO office, DHS has established a
structure of training councils and groups that cover a wide range of
issues and include representatives from each organizational component
within DHS. The department is in the process of using these bodies to
facilitate communication and the sharing of information within its diverse
training community. In some instances, these councils and groups foster
greater collaboration and coordination on training policies, programs, and
the sharing of training opportunities. We have previously reported that
agencies with a strategic approach to training recognize the importance of
having training officials and other human capital professionals work in
partnership with other agency leaders and stakeholders on training
efforts.13

The Training Leaders Council (TLC) plays a vital role in DHS's efforts to
foster communication and interchange among the department's various
training communities. This council consists of senior training leaders
from each of the department's components as well as representatives from
several department-level headquarters staff and support organizations

12 GAO/GGD-96-118. 13 GAO-04-546G.

with an interest in training-related issues.14 Started in October 2004 and
formally chartered by the CHCO in March 2005, the TLC's mission is to
establish and sustain a collaborative community with the aim of promoting
high-quality training, education, and development throughout DHS. To this
end, it functions as a convener of training leaders from throughout the
department and provides an overarching framework for several preexisting
training groups and councils that were reestablished as standing
committees of the TLC. Membership of the TLC consists of senior training
leaders from each DHS component. In addition, most of these leaders as
well as other training staff serve on one or more of its subgroups. See
figure 2 for descriptions of the TLC and each of its subgroups.

14 The TLC includes representatives from the following entities: CBP, CIS,
FLETC, ICE, TSA, Emergency Preparedness and Response/Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection,
Science and Technology, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and US-VISIT.
The TLC also includes representatives from the following DHS department
level organizations: CHCO office, Office of the Chief Information Officer,
Office of the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel, Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Office of Counter Narcotics, and Office
of State and Local Coordination and Preparedness/Center for Domestic
Preparedness.

         Figure 2: Departmental Training Councils and Subgroups at DHS

                                   Subgroups

Leadership Training and Development Group

This group consists of DHS training professionals responsible for
delivering leadership training for supervisors, managers, and executives.
The purpose of the group is to serve as a community of practice. It has
provided information and recommendations regarding current and proposed
DHS leadership programs.

Training Evaluation and Quality Assurance Group

This group consists of training professionals who are responsible for
evaluating and ensuring the quality of training programs in DHS. The goal
is to increase information sharing as a community of practice and to
determine best practices to share.

Advanced Distributed Learning Group

This group consisting of e-learning professionals from throughout DHS,
services as a community of practice and makes recommendations on
e-learning policies and programs. It also served as the lead on a recent
study about Advanced Distributed Learning in DHS.

Training Commodity Council

This council brings together training and contracting staff to explore
ways to improve the ability for organizational components to evaluate and
select training vendor resources in the areas of leadership training and
development acquisition workforce development.

Source: GAO representation of DHS information.

One key function of the TLC and these other training groups is to serve as
a "community of practice" wherein officials can discuss common training
challenges and share knowledge and best practices. For example, the
Training Evaluation and Quality Assurance Group, composed of DHS training
professionals responsible for evaluating and ensuring the quality of DHS
training programs, conducted an informal survey of evaluation practices in
various components with the intent of identifying effective evaluation
approaches. A training official involved in the group told us that this
survey was particularly important for the department's newer
organizations, such as the Directorate for Information Analysis and

Infrastructure Protection, which need to establish new practices from
scratch. According to this official, his directorate and other
organizations within DHS plan to use the group as a way to tap into the
experience of other components within the department, such as CBP and
FLETC, which have considerably more experience with training evaluation.

In addition to sharing information about training practices, these groups
can also provide a forum for exchanging practical information with the
goal of making more efficient use of existing resources. For example, one
training official told us that as a result of information obtained at TLC
meetings, the official became aware of the existence of free training
space available at facilities of two other components located in the
Washington, D.C., metro area. Also, as a result of participating in these
meetings, the official's organization was able to send an additional
person to the Federal Executive Institute after becoming aware that
another component had surplus spaces and was offering them at a reduced
price to other components within DHS.15

Another role carried out by the TLC is to collaborate on the formulation
of training policies and advise the department's CHCO accordingly. For
example, the TLC, in cooperation with staff from the CHCO office and an
external contractor, conducted a survey of training sites throughout the
department in 2004. This study cataloged available physical resources and
site capacities with the aim of identifying potential opportunities to
share these resources more efficiently, consolidate unneeded or
duplicative sites, and identify other opportunities to increase training
collaboration and effectiveness. This effort resulted in a series of
recommendations that were subsequently incorporated into the department's
training strategic plan.

The activities of the department's Advanced Distributed Learning Group
(ADLG) provides another example of how training officials from different
components have worked together to develop proposals for solutions to
departmentwide challenges. This group identified several issues in the

15 The Government Employees Training Act provides that an agency can
extend its training courses to employees of other government agencies (5
U.S.C. S: 4104(2)). A Comptroller General decision reviewed the
legislative history of this provision and concluded that training can be
provided on a reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis, at the discretion
of the agency offering the training (B-193293, Nov. 13, 1978). A DHS
component that is offering training is authorized to make its courses
available to other employees of DHS or of other government agencies.

area of technology and learning, including the need for a compatible IT
infrastructure across components and the fact that some components lacked
established systems with which to coordinate and manage training
opportunities and attendance. Working with an outside consultant, the
ADLG's efforts resulted in a proposal that DHS create a new Advanced
Distributed Learning (ADL) Program Management Office to oversee the
process of setting common standards. This proposal was subsequently
included as part of the department's training strategic plan. In addition,
the ADLG's work also led to DHS entering into a memorandum of
understanding with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of
Personnel Management to create a DHS headquarters learning management
system. Throughout this process, the ADLG represented the interests of the
DHS training community as it worked with representatives from the Chief
Information Officer's office and other functions within the department, as
well as outside consultants.

Despite these positive steps, DHS's effort to foster communication and
coordination through departmentwide training councils and groups is at a
relatively early stage and so far has produced varied results. Some
training organizations, such as the TLC and ADLG, have met regularly
leading to tangible results, while others such as the Training Evaluation
and Quality Assurance Group, have met a few times and have only begun to
set the groundwork for substantive coordination and collaboration in these
areas. In addition, a training official told us that even active
organizations like the TLC have encountered difficulties related to the
relative lack of staff support for these efforts. As a result, additional
burdens sometimes fall to the leaders and members of these groups who, in
addition to serving on one or more departmental training groups or
councils, must carry out fulltime training positions at their home
components.

    DHS Provides Training to Address Selected Departmentwide Needs

Another way DHS addresses departmentwide training issues is to directly
provide training interventions or resources that address selected
departmentwide needs, goals, or objectives. Three examples of the areas
where DHS has worked to directly provide or support training on the
departmental level are the following: (1) training related to the
implementation of MAXHR, (2) DHS leadership development, and (3) training
related to civil rights and civil liberties.

Training for MAXHR implementation. DHS's new human capital management
system, known as MAXHR, represents a fundamental change in many of the
department's human capital policies and procedures that will affect a
large majority-approximately 110,000-of its civilian

employees. MAXHR covers many key human capital areas, such as pay,
performance management, classification, labor relations, adverse actions,
and employee appeals, and will be implemented in phases affecting
increasing numbers of employees over the next several years.

DHS correctly recognizes that a substantial investment in training is a
key aspect of effectively implementing MAXHR, and in particular, the new
performance management system it establishes. The need for in-depth
performance management and employee development training is further
supported by the department's results on the 2004 Federal Human Capital
Survey. In this survey, just over half of DHS respondents-51 percent-
believe supervisors or team leaders in their work units encourage their
development at work, significantly less than the governmentwide response
of 64 percent. DHS officials said they plan to educate all affected DHS
employees on the details of the new system, how it will affect them, and
the purpose of the changes. To do this, the department decided to develop,
coordinate, and manage MAXHR training centrally through the CHCO office
and offered its first training in May 2005. DHS plans to continue to
provide its workforce with MAXHR training over the next several years
following a phased approach that takes into account both when individual
provisions of the new regulations take effect as well as the different
audiences that exist within the DHS community, including human capital
personnel, supervisors, and general employees. See figure 3 for a
depiction of planned training during 2005 and its intended audiences.

Figure 3: Timeline for MAXHR Training Scheduled through the End of 2005

Note: This training schedule reflects the department's plans as of early
August 2005. However, we were told by a DHS official that these dates are
subject to change.

The department has worked with contractors to develop training that uses a
variety of approaches, including classroom instruction, ADL, handbooks,
manuals, and quick reference guides, depending on specific needs. For
example, in May 2005, labor relations/employee relations specialists and
attorneys in the department received 2- 1/2 days of training on the
provisions of the new regulations and the major difference between them
and previous programs. Structured as a "train the trainer" type
intervention intended to prepare participants to conduct supervisor
briefings in their own components, this was an instructor-led course held
at sites across the country. In addition to educating individuals about
the regulations, procedures, and systems associated with MAXHR and the
adoption of a new performance management system, the department also plans
to offer training specifically targeted to developing the skills and

behaviors that will be necessary for its successful implementation. For
example, in July 2005 supervisors began to receive training on techniques
for providing meaningful feedback to, coaching, and mentoring employees.

DHS leadership development training. Leadership development is another
area top management in DHS acknowledged as appropriate for departmentwide
training to supplement existing component-level offerings. In 2004, the
Secretary of Homeland Security announced the "One DHS" policy that
identified the need to establish a common leadership competency framework
for the department, as well as a unified training curriculum for current
and future leaders. The purpose of this framework was to identify the
skills, abilities, and attributes necessary for success as a DHS leader
and to establish measurable standards for evaluation.

To this end, the CHCO established the DHS Leadership Training and
Development Group (LTDG), comprising training officials from each DHS
component who combined an expertise in leadership development with
personal knowledge of the missions and unique aspects of their particular
organizational components. The LTDG met regularly from late 2003 to
mid-2004. During this time, the group developed a set of new core
leadership competencies for DHS supervisors, managers, and executives,
which it issued in April 2004. According to a DHS official, since the
development of these new competencies they have been used by one component
as part of its own leadership development plan and they have also helped
to guide and inform current MAXHR leadership development efforts.

DHS has recently taken steps regarding another facet of its leadership
development initiative-its SES Candidate Development Program. In June
2005, DHS issued a management directive establishing the SES Candidate
Development Program, which included a rigorous selection process and
critical leadership development opportunities, such as mentoring,
developmental assignments, and action learning designed to give SES
candidates experience in different job roles. DHS initially announced that
it planned to implement the program in fiscal year 2005, but now may delay
doing so until fiscal year 2006.

Civil rights/civil liberties training. A third area in which DHS has taken
steps to provide or support departmental training involves civil rights
and civil liberties. FLETC's Behavioral Science Division and Legal
Division, working with the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
produced several training interventions, including Web-based, CD-ROM, and
in-

person programs designed to increase sensitivity and understanding in
protecting human and constitutional rights. As part of this effort, FLETC
held diversity seminars that focused on promoting understanding and
respect of religious practices, particularly involving those of the Arab
and Muslim communities. In another example of this effort, the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties produced Web-based training on current
policies regarding racial profiling.

Our interviews with DHS training leaders suggest that further improvements
can be made in communicating the availability of selected departmentwide
training programs and resources. Staff at the Office of Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties provided copies of its civil rights and liberties programs
to training offices at each component in the department. While some senior
training officials told us that their components actively disseminated
this material by placing it on the component's training Web site or
incorporating it into preexisting courses, other senior training officials
we spoke with were unaware of any departmental training on these topics.
In addition, other officials told us that their component's training
office had independently developed its own material on Arabic sensitivity
training, wholly apart from similar efforts undertaken by others in the
department. More specifically, they told us that their development of
certain training modules predated the development of very similar modules
later prepared by DHS's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and
FLETC, leading these officials to conclude that they may have been able to
assist departmental efforts by sharing their work had they been aware of
them.

    Challenges May Impede Achievement of Departmentwide Training Goals

Sharing of Training Information across Components Made More Difficult by
Lack of Compatible Infrastructure and Commonly Understood Terminology

As DHS moves forward, it faces challenges to achieving departmentwide
training goals. These challenges include lack of common management
information systems, the absence of commonly understood training
terminology across components, the lack of specificity in authority and
accountability relationships between the CHCO office and components,
insufficient planning for effective implementation, and insufficient
resources for ensuring effective implementation of training strategies.

The formation of DHS from 22 legacy agencies and programs has created
challenges to achieving departmentwide training goals. Of particular
concern to the training officials we spoke with are the lack of common
management information systems and the absence of commonly understood
training terminology across components. The training functions at DHS's
components largely operate as they did before the creation of the
department, with many of the same policies, practices, and

infrastructures of their former organizations, and within these
organizations are, for the most part, the same training leaders. It will
take time for these organizations to evolve into a coordinated, integrated
department. We have previously reported that successful transformations of
large organizations, even those faced with less strenuous reorganizations
and pressure for immediate results than DHS, can take from 5 to 7 years to
fully take hold.16

One issue DHS officials raised was the lack of common or compatible
management information systems, such as information technology or
financial management, which can inform decision makers' efforts to make
efficient use of training resources across components. For example, DHS
officials stated that a key challenge they encountered involved the
difficulty of knowing what others were doing outside their particular
offices or components. DHS lacks any unified sourcebook that employees
could consult for the names, telephone numbers, and other relevant
information of key contact persons in areas such as acquisition. Obtaining
accurate information about resources and products available in the
marketplace as well as data on users, vendors, and kinds of work has been
a challenge to that effort. Another issue cited by officials concerned the
lack of compatibility between learning management systems across
components. In addition, some training officials expressed concerns about
the accuracy or timeliness of some training data, which can limit or at
least considerably delay their ability to track and fully account for
funds spent on training and training-related travel. DHS has several
efforts under way to address these issues, including the development of an
online training facilities inventory intended to increase awareness of
existing resources across the department and its decision to begin
developing common ADL policies and standards.

Officials also told us that there was little or no common understanding
among DHS organizational components regarding the meaning of such basic
terms as "subject matter expert," "orientation," and even "training." The
lack of commonly understood terminology has presented challenges when
officials from different components, including those participating in
departmental training councils and groups, try to share practices with
each other. These officials told us that the lack of commonly understood
terminology can also affect their interactions with outside entities, such
as

16 GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers
and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).

Authority and Accountability Relationships between CHCO Office and
Components Are Not Sufficiently Specific

contractors and state and local agencies. Besides facilitating
communications and enabling components to share practices, a DHS official
told us that a common nomenclature would increase the transparency of
training practices to external contractors as well as the internal DHS
training community. The department's training strategic plan calls for the
creation of a common training language and glossary of terms in fiscal
year 2006, and officials told us that they are currently in the early
stages of creating such a glossary.

An effective management control environment appropriately assigns
authority and delegates responsibility to the proper personnel to achieve
organizational goals and objectives.17 In such an environment, staff
members who are delegated responsibility are given corresponding
authority. In light of this, DHS's adoption of a "dual accountability"
governance structure in 2004 presents certain challenges. Under this
concept, heads of organizational components and the CHCO share
responsibility for effective training in DHS. With a shared responsibility
for DHS training, both the CHCO and component heads should have
appropriate authority for making decisions regarding training.18 DHS does
not specify how authority for training matters will be shared between the
CHCO office and components for budgeting, staffing, and policy (e.g.,
determining which training functions, if any, should remain with
components or be performed by DHS headquarters). The DHS management
directive on training currently in place is a high-level twopage document
that provides very few specifics on policies, procedures, and authorities
for the CHCO office and the components.

The department recognizes the need to clarify the responsibilities and
authorities of the CHCO office and the components, as indicated by its
inclusion in the DHS training strategic plan. Many of the tactics included
in the plan would be difficult to successfully implement without first
having a

17 GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

18 The DHS management directive entitled "Human Capital Line of Business
Integration and Management" specifies several roles and responsibilities
for the CHCO and component heads. Roles for the CHCO include advising and
assisting top DHS officials on training issues and designing processes and
systems to achieve departmentwide training goals. For example, component
heads have the role of recruiting, hiring, and reviewing human capital
officials, including training staff. However, DHS has not yet specified,
in detail, the responsibility, accountability, and authority of the CHCO
and the component heads, although officials have indicated that they plan
to do so during fiscal year 2006.

clear understanding of the responsibilities and authorities of the key
organizations involved. More specifically, in the absence of clear
authority relationships, decisions regarding how particular component
training goals and strategies are to be incorporated in the DHS training
strategic plan, or which training facilities should be consolidated to
achieve departmental efficiencies, will be difficult to make. Without
moving ahead with this effort in a timely fashion and completing the
process of specifying how the CHCO office and components will share
authority over training matters, it will be difficult for DHS to make the
progress necessary on its departmentwide training agenda if it is to
effectively implement the many strategies and tactics planned for fiscal
year 2006.

In addition, DHS's efforts at coordinating training across components and
clarifying roles and relationships between departmental functions and
organizational components may be further hampered by the fact that the
management directive governing the integration of the human capital
function claims that the Coast Guard19 and the Secret Service20 are
statutorily exempt from its application. We found no reasonable basis to
conclude that the directive could not be made applicable to them and are
not aware of any explicit statutory exemption that would prevent the
application of this directive. Moreover, exempting the Coast Guard and the
Secret Service from the provisions of this directive casts doubt on the
authority and accountability relationships between these components and
the CHCO, potentially complicating the department's objective of
clarifying the responsibilities, accountability, and authorities of the
CHCO office and the components set forth in DHS's training strategic plan.

19 While several provisions in the Homeland Security Act require the Coast
Guard to be maintained as a distinct entity and would limit the range of
management initiatives regarding the Coast Guard, none of them would
appear to be applicable in this case. We find nothing in the DHS
management directive on the integration of human capital that contravenes
these limitations and nothing in the directive would reasonably appear to
threaten the status of the Coast Guard as a distinct entity or otherwise
impair its ability to perform statutory missions. We have reported on a
similar situation with respect to the department's acquisition function.
See GAO, Homeland Security: Successes and Challenges in DHS's Efforts to
Create an Effective Acquisition Organization, GAO-05-179 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2005).

20 Similarly, DHS's management directive on human capital integration also
asserts that the Secret Service is exempted by statute. As with the Coast
Guard, we are unaware of any specific statutory exemption that would
prevent the application of the DHS management directive regarding human
capital, and given the nature of the management directive, we do not see
any apparent reason to exempt the Secret Service.

Planning May Be Insufficiently Detailed to Ensure Effective Implementation
in "Dual Accountability" Environment

Resources Needed to Implement Departmental Training Strategy

In and of itself, DHS's dual accountability authority structure is not an
obstacle to implementation of departmentwide training efforts. However,
without detailed implementation plans, it presents potentially significant
challenges. Because of this shared authority, DHS will need to take great
care when planning for departmentwide training initiatives involving
multiple organizational components to ensure that resources are aligned
with organizational units performing activities, especially related to
crossorganizational sharing of training and delivery of common training.
The lack of comprehensive and rigorous planning can lead to confusion over
responsibilities, lack of coordination, and missed deadlines. Regular and
rigorous use of detailed implementation plans is necessary to implement
decisions and carry out activities in a coordinated manner.

After we completed our audit work, DHS informed us that it plans to
establish 31 tactic teams to take ownership of each of the tactics
presented in the DHS training strategic plan to be completed by the end of
fiscal year 2006. As of mid-August 2005, DHS provided us with
documentation indicating that 3 of these teams have been established to
date. These teams appear to have taken promising steps toward the
establishment of detailed plans for implementing their respective training
tactics by developing draft objectives, deliverables, and closure
criteria. But as fiscal year 2006 approaches, time is short for the CHCO
office and the components to establish the remaining teams and then take
the actions necessary to develop and put in place the detailed plans that
will be critical for effectively implementing DHS's many training tactics
by the end of the coming fiscal year. The TLC's ADLG has made use of this
type of detailed approach in a report proposing a distance learning
architecture for the department. Appended to its report is a detailed plan
outlining the major activities, milestones, resources, and components
needed to support the successful implementation of the proposal.

Several training officials told us they were concerned about the lack of
dedicated resources and related capacity to carry out departmental
initiatives. At the time we started our review, the CHCO office had only
one full-time permanent employee dedicated to carrying out these
activities; consequently, both training leaders and staff from
organizational components were relied on to contribute to departmentwide
efforts. After we concluded our audit work, a DHS official told us that
the CHCO office had recently hired two additional full-time training
staff: an ADL program manager and a staffer to oversee a recently approved
SES candidate development program and headquarters operational leadership
development. Individual components have also provided some assistance to
departmentwide efforts through the appointment of temporary

personnel. In late 2004, CBP and FLETC each detailed a staff member to the
CHCO office to work on training-related projects. In addition, DHS has
contracted for services to address selected departmentwide issues, such as
setting common standards for ADL and reviewing DHS training facilities.

DHS's departmental training councils and groups are almost exclusively
staffed by component training leaders who already have full-time training
commitments. The department's training strategic plan identifies many
tactics for fiscal year 2006-including creating a common training language
and glossary of training terms, establishing a repository for course
catalog information, and developing a DHS training Web site-that will
require considerable staff support to implement. Successful and timely
completion of these and other initiatives will depend on sufficient
resources being provided.

It is essential for federal agencies to ensure that their training efforts
are part of-and are driven by-their organizational strategic and
performance planning processes. We have reported that aligning training
with strategic priorities and systematically evaluating training
activities play key roles in helping agencies to ensure that training is
strategically focused on improving performance and meeting overall
organizational goals.21 Strategic training practices in several DHS
components or programs may provide models or insights to others in the
department regarding ways to improve training practices.22 In areas where
some components employed strategic practices, other components did not.

  DHS's Approach to Planning and Evaluation of Training Demonstrates Some
  Elements of Strategic Practice, but Is Still Evolving

Aligning Training with We have previously reported that agencies
demonstrating a strategic Organizational Priorities Is approach to
training align their training efforts with overall strategic a Strategic
Practice priorities. To do this, agencies can employ a variety of
practices, such as

linking training activities to strategic planning and budgeting and
performing front-end analysis to ensure that training activities are not

21 GAO-04-546G.

22 We have previously reported that organizations undergoing successful
transformations look for and implement best practices wherever they may be
found. See GAO-03-669 and GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum, Mergers and
Transformation: Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and
Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).

initiated in an ad hoc, uncoordinated manner, but rather are focused on
improving performance toward the agency's goals.23 Some components in DHS
applied the strategic practice of aligning training with organizational
priorities, while others did not.

CBP links its new and existing training activities to its strategic
priorities when planning for its strategic initiatives and expenditures.
Importantly, the head of training at CBP is at the decision-making table
with other CBP leaders to help establish training priorities consistent
with the priorities of the CBP Commissioner. Relevant program managers are
asked, "What training do you need to achieve the goals in your strategic
plan?" Such discussions took place during planning for CBP's custom trade
pact initiative.

During each budget cycle, CBP's central training office issues a "call for
training" to its mission and mission support customers to estimate CBP's
training needs for existing training activities and prioritize these needs
based upon the Commissioner's priorities. Prior to establishing this
process, training was mostly decided on a first come, first serve basis
without clear and transparent linkages to organizational priorities. CBP's
current process results in an annual training plan in which training needs
are identified by priority as well as major occupational type, such as
border patrol agent or CBP officer. Training decisions are based on
whether training requested is critical, necessary, or "nice to have."
During fiscal year training plan implementation, CBP tracks actual
training activity through a central database to determine whether CBP is
using its planned training resources. By tracking plan usage through a
centrally managed database, CBP is able to reallocate unused training
funds prior to the end of the fiscal year for either training activities
that were not included in its original plan because of capacity
constraints, or for emerging training priorities.

The Coast Guard has adopted a strategic and analytic approach to training
through its use of the Human Performance Technology (HPT) model-a
front-end training assessment process to determine the cause of
performance problems. The process starts with the assumption that many
factors influence individual and unit performance and it is important to
determine what the factors are before concluding that training is the
solution. From its HPT analysis, the Coast Guard determines whether

23 GAO-04-546G.

training is needed or whether another type of solution, such as a policy
change, would be more appropriate. For example, in addressing a problem in
aviation maintenance, a Coast Guard working group looked at likely causes
of its performance problems and concluded that focusing on making aviation
maintenance training better was not the only solution. More specifically,
training officials encountered problems with job dissatisfaction and
subpar performance from aviation chief warrant officers. In this case,
training officials used HPT to analyze the nature of work performed by
those responsible for aviation maintenance and concluded that there was
not a good match between job skills and responsibilities. Specifically,
over the last 20 years, the scope and nature of the work performed by
chief warrant officers changed significantly from maintaining components
to managing aircraft systems. Performance problems were mainly caused by
significant changes in the job functions of these officers over the years
rather than by a lack of adequate training.

In cases where the HPT analysis concludes that training is warranted, a
training analysis is performed to determine the specific training
interventions. For example, in implementing activities related to the
Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Coast Guard analyzed its
training needs through the HPT process to determine training necessary to
help maritime inspectors reduce the exposure of ports and waterways to
terrorist activities. The analysis identified the skills and knowledge
necessary for new maritime inspector tasks and provided training
interventions, such as developing job aids and targeted classes, to
prepare inspectors for the tasks most relevant to support their new role.
New courses were piloted and then subjected to multilevel evaluations to
assess their effectiveness and potential impact on employee performance.

Systematic Evaluation of Agencies demonstrating a strategic approach to
training employ a variety Training Is a Strategic of practices, such as
systematically evaluating training, actively Practice incorporating
feedback during training design, and using feedback from

multiple perspectives.24 Several components and programs we examined at

DHS used these practices, while others did not.

24 GAO-04-546G.

One commonly accepted model used for assessing and evaluating training
programs consists of five levels of assessment (see fig. 4).25 In our
review, virtually all components captured Level I data focusing on
end-of-course reactions, while several also collected Level II data
focusing on changes in employee skill, knowledge, or abilities. Several
components evaluated, or were planning to evaluate, the impact of selected
training programs on individual behavior, represented by Level III
evaluations.

Figure 4: Levels of Training Evaluation

Note: GAO presentation based on information from Donald L. Kirkpatrick,
Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), and Jack J. Phillips, ed.,
Implementing Evaluation Systems and Processes (Alexandria, Va.: American
Society for Training and Development, 1998).

To measure the real impact of training, however, agencies need to move
beyond data focused primarily on inputs and outputs and develop additional
indicators that help determine how training efforts contribute to

25 Donald L. Kirkpatrick, author of Evaluating Training Programs: The Four
Levels (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), developed
a commonly recognized fourlevel model for evaluating training and
development efforts. The fourth level is sometimes split into two levels
with the fifth level, return on investment, representing a comparison of
costs and benefits quantified in dollars. See Jack J. Philips,
Implementing Evaluation Systems and Processes.

the accomplishment of agency goals and objectives. At a couple of
components, DHS officials told us they conducted Level IV evaluations,
which assess the effectiveness of training interventions. We found no
examples of the department or its components measuring the return on
investment of training activities (Level V).26 Training effectiveness
should be measured against organizational performance; however, not all
levels of training evaluation require or are suitable for return on
investment analysis. Determining whether training programs merit the cost
of using such an approach depends upon the programs' significance and
appropriateness.

CBP takes a systematic approach to evaluating its training activities
through its National Training Evaluation Program (NTEP) to help program
managers and trainers make more informed decisions on the effectiveness of
training courses and their delivery. Despite the fact that CBP is a large
and decentralized organization, NTEP has enabled it to collect course
evaluation information and make this information available to a wide range
of users in a timely manner. NTEP has also standardized evaluation data to
allow for comparison of training throughout various field locations.
Before the rollout of NTEP, CBP did not use a standard mechanism for
collecting evaluation data, which, according to a CBP official, made it
difficult to gather evaluation data nationally.

CBP focuses on collecting both end-of-course student reactions (Level I)
and supervisor assessments of student on-the-job performance after
attending the training (Level III). Electronic or paper-based evaluations
are entered into the NTEP information system. The "close to real time"
online data enables supervisors to perform trend analysis on training
quality and provides opportunities for them to troubleshoot training
deficiencies and identify high-performing courses. The NTEP online system
allows CBP employees access to evaluation data on a need to

26 Higher levels of evaluation, and in particular Level V, can be
challenging to conduct because of the difficulty and costs associated with
data collection and the complexity in directly linking training programs
to improved individual and organizational performance. Factors to consider
when deciding the appropriate level of evaluation include estimated costs
of the training effort, size of the training audience, management
interest, program visibility, and the anticipated "life span" of the
effort. In light of these considerations, an agency may decide to evaluate
participants' reactions (Level I) for all of its training programs, while
conducting a return on investment analysis (Level V) for only a very few.
Each agency will need to consider the feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of conducting these in-depth evaluations, along with budgetary and
staffing circumstances that may limit the agency's ability to complete
such evaluations.

know basis with four levels of access, while enabling them to locate
evaluation data for any training class by date. Evaluation reports are
aggregated for review by senior CBP officials.

A CBP official told us that collecting course evaluation data is labor
intensive, especially since many field operations still use paper
processes. In addition, CBP has experienced a relatively low submission
rate for Level I evaluation data for many of its training classes. The
official told us that this was especially true for end-of-course reactions
from staff in the field, where only about one-third of officer-related
course participants submit evaluation forms. Given cost and labor
challenges, CBP has targeted areas for evaluation that it believes are
important, such as training related to its "One Face at the Border"
initiative.

In addition, agencies with a strategic approach to training do not wait
until the conclusion of a training intervention to conduct evaluations.
Rather, they approach evaluation through an iterative process capable of
informing all stages of training.27 DHS's CHCO office used multiple forms
of feedback from employees to develop its training strategy for MAXHR.
From February through April 2005, the department administered surveys and
conducted focus groups to obtain information on the needs, attitudes, and
reactions of different communities affected by MAXHR. Shortly after
issuing its new human capital regulations, the department provided basic
information to all employees on the nature and timeline of changes they
could expect under MAXHR through a Web broadcast. After the broadcast an
online survey was used to obtain feedback from employees regarding the
broadcast itself and their general feelings and concerns about the MAXHR
initiative.

DHS followed this initial survey with a larger survey to gather additional
feedback on how information regarding MAXHR had been communicated, as well
as specific areas where employees wanted additional information. Concerns
about the need for training were prominent among the more than 9,000
responses received, with respondents ranking training as the second most
serious challenge to the successful implementation of MAXHR. According to
a senior DHS official, the survey results will inform subsequent training
and communication efforts.

27 GAO-04-546G.

DHS also collected evaluative feedback by conducting a series of focus
groups held in locations across the country. The aim of these sessions was
to validate the design of the performance management program established
under MAXHR and identify concerns that would inform the development of
additional training. Consistent with the strategic training practice of
seeking out different perspectives when redesigning and assessing training
efforts, DHS staff held separate focus groups for bargaining unit
employees, non-bargaining unit employees, and supervisors and managers at
all of the locations visited. This enabled them to identify issues of
particular concern to each of these groups as well as issues common to all
three. For example, both the bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit
employee focus groups raised concerns about supervisors having inadequate
skills for fairly administering the new performance management system.
This concern was also shared by supervisors and managers themselves who
expressed the need for additional skills training in areas such as goal
setting and providing performance feedback. The sessions validated the
CHCO office's plans to offer performance management training to
supervisors and managers before the implementation of the new system and
assisted in refining issues for future training.

FLETC's methods for evaluating its major training programs include
feedback from multiple perspectives when examining the benefits of
training on actual employee job performance. FLETC's Level III evaluations
obtain feedback from both trainees and their supervisors to inform future
improvements to training curricula. Evaluation results are compiled into a
comprehensive report used during FLETC's periodic curriculum reviews on
its major training programs, such as the Natural Resource Police Training
Program. The report contains detailed feedback from both the trainee and
supervisor perspectives 6 months to 1 year after the trainee has attended
the training program. For example, for the Natural Resource Police
Training Program, FLETC analyzed how well the program prepared trainees in
all aspects of their jobs. In this case, analysis identified those courses
that had benefited program trainees the least- including determining speed
from skid marks and death notification. Training designers can use report
information to improve program curricula and refocus training on knowledge
and skill areas most critical to performing the job. In addition to Level
III evaluation results, its training designers make program and individual
class changes by using other methods of evaluation, such as direct student
feedback after classes and trainee examinations, which determine how well
the trainees understood the course material immediately following the
program.

  DHS Has Used Training in an Effort to Help Its Workforce as the Department
  Undergoes Transformation and Cultural Change

The creation of DHS resulted in significant cultural and transformational
challenges for the department. We have previously reported that training
is one way organizations successfully address cultural issues while
simultaneously facilitating new ways to work toward the achievement of
organizational goals.28 Among the DHS components in our review, some
merged cultures from different legacy organizations (CBP, ICE), another
component came as a small organization that greatly expanded when joining
DHS (Federal Air Marshal Service), while others joined DHS intact (Secret
Service, Coast Guard, FLETC), and still another was previously a part of a
larger legacy organization (CIS). Each component faces the need to find a
way to identify itself as part of the larger DHS organization, that is,
with a sense of affiliation rather than as an outsider looking in. At the
same time, components must either maintain their existing cultures or
develop new cultures to adapt to changing missions and needs. The key is
to build upon positive aspects of the components' cultures as the larger
organization develops its own culture.

Agencies that undergo successful transformations change more than just
their organizational charts, they also make fundamental changes in basic
operations, such as how they approach strategic human capital management.
DHS understands this, and the MAXHR initiative is part of an effort by the
department to fundamentally change its approach to human capital
management by establishing a personnel system that is flexible,
performance oriented, and market based.

The Secretary of Homeland Security and other top officials have actively
supported the role of training in implementing these changes by making it
a leadership expectation that all DHS executives, managers, and
supervisors be personally involved as both participants in and supporters
of MAXHR training efforts. The CHCO office, working with the assistance of

28 See GAO, Organizational Culture: Techniques Companies Use to Perpetuate
or Change Beliefs and Values, GAO/NSIAD-92-105 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27,
1992), and Organizational Culture: Use of Training to Help Change DOD
Inventory Management Culture, GAO/NSIAD-94-193 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30,
1994). The first of these reports examined techniques used by nine large
private sector firms to affect their organizational cultures. We found
that company officials identified two techniques that were of very great
importance to a successful culture change: (1) total commitment of top
management and (2) training that promotes and develops skills in line with
the desired culture. More recently, we have reported on the cultural
changes and key practices necessary for successful transformation. See,
GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current and
Emerging Challenges, GAO-05-830T (Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2005).

outside contractors, has developed several training interventions aimed at
providing these groups with the tools and information needed to champion
the benefits of a performance-based culture and successfully implement
MAXHR in their components.

In August 2005, DHS sponsored a 2- 1/2 day training program for 350 to 400
of the department's senior executives and flag officers. The program
covered a range of topics, including an update on current DHS priorities;
techniques and best practices for how senior leaders can effectively
support and implement these priorities; as well as specific management,
communication, and training approaches that can be used to support the
creation of a performance-based culture. The Secretary, Deputy Secretary,
and Under Secretary for Management all participated in the program, which
also featured presentations from human capital and organizational change
experts from outside the department. In addition to its focus on MAXHR
implementation, which included both large and small group sessions wherein
participants could discuss performance management and share information on
practices, the course also provided a forum for the department's top
leadership and senior executives to review the then recently issued
recommendations resulting from the Secretary's Second Stage Review
process.

Another training intervention sponsored by the department directly targets
managers and supervisors who will be responsible for carrying out many of
the key behaviors associated with the new system and whose active support
is viewed by DHS as critical for achieving the transformation to a
performance-based culture. The 2- 1/2 day program focuses on developing
and improving interpersonal, managerial, and other so-called soft skills.
DHS expects to provide the training to approximately 12,000 managers and
supervisors throughout the department.

On the component level, training has also played an important role in
CBP's effort to transform from the traditional, largely siloed approach
used by its legacy agencies when protecting our borders to a new
integrated concept that it believes is more in line with its current
needs. Officials noted that the merger into CBP led to some resistance
from employees who had not yet understood or accepted the reasons for the
merger. These same officials acknowledged that they must continue to work
at informing employees why changes were made and provide vehicles for
better integration through training. For example, in the "One Face at the
Border" initiative, supervisory training has incorporated some elements of
cultural integration by including a session on bridging the culture gap.
Officials at CBP designed and piloted a training module to be

added to the supervisory curriculum specifically targeting how they can
more effectively understand the value and perspective of staff coming out
of the legacy organizational cultures.

In addition, training played a key role in facilitating the transition of
CBP's workforce from its three legacy organizations. Training for the new
CBP officer and CBP agriculture specialist positions aimed to improve
coordination and communication across inspection functions and enhance the
flexibility of CBP's workforce. Specifically, CBP created a series of
training courses to provide former Customs and former Immigration and
Naturalization Service officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to
carry out the responsibilities of this new position. To develop this
training, CBP-wide working groups identified and validated critical tasks
for the new frontline CBP officer to perform. A mix of training delivery
methods were used (i.e., e-learning and instructor led), and classroom
knowledge and skills were reinforced with on-the-job training. CBP
provided extensive train-the-trainer courses so that trainers could return
to their field sites and instruct officers there. (See app. 2.)

Conclusions 	DHS must continue to make progress on three important aspects
of training as it moves forward: (1) forging an effective role for
training at the departmental level and implementing its departmentwide
training strategy; (2) taking a strategic approach to training practices,
in part by building upon examples of good practice to be found among its
former organizations, as well as considering other examples of strategic
practices; and (3) finding ways that training can help to foster
organizational transformation and cultural change within the department.
To date, DHS has taken positive steps in these areas, yet significant
challenges lie ahead.

The ability to make decisions from a departmentwide perspective and then
effectively implement them will help determine whether training in DHS
achieves its intended results. Strong leadership will play a critical role
in this process. To be successful, DHS will need to have both a clear plan
of action as well as the ability to anticipate and overcome several
implementation challenges. The creation of the TLC and the development of
the department's first training strategic plan both represent a good start
in this process. Better performance measures, more specific milestones,
and the inclusion of performance targets would make DHS's strategic
training plan a more useful tool for both internal and external
stakeholders to use in tracking the department's progress toward achieving
its training objectives. Clarifying authority relationships between the
CHCO and component heads, developing detailed implementation plans, and
giving

appropriate attention to providing resources to implement training
initiatives when setting funding priorities are also likely to be critical
factors in building and sustaining an effective role for department-level
training at DHS.

A strategic approach toward training is also very important as DHS seeks
to build on its current efforts and strives to move forward. As we have
noted, some programs and components in DHS already use specific strategic
training practices, and other components within the department can benefit
from their example. As DHS implements new training programs, such as the
large-scale, multistage training being developed to support the
implementation of MAXHR, it has a valuable opportunity to reflect the
lessons learned from these experiences in subsequent departmentwide
training efforts. Finally, the transition to a new department has brought
with it cultural challenges, and training can play a role in both defining
and refining an effective DHS culture without sacrificing the cultural
history of its components.

Recommendations for To help DHS establish and implement an effective and
strategic approach to departmentwide training, we recommend that the
Secretary of Executive Action Homeland Security take the following
actions:

o  	adopt additional good strategic planning and management practices to
enhance the department's training strategic plan by (1) creating a clearer
crosswalk between specific training goals and objectives and DHS's
organizational and human capital strategic goals and (2) developing
appropriate training performance measures and targets;

o  	clearly specify authority and accountability relationships between the
CHCO office and organizational components regarding training as a first
step to addressing issues DHS has identified for fiscal year 2006;

o  	ensure that the department and component organizations develop
detailed implementation plans and related processes for training
initiatives; and

o  	when setting funding priorities, give appropriate attention to
providing resources to support training councils and groups to further
DHS's capacity to achieve its departmentwide training goals.

Agency Comments 	We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of
Homeland Security for comment and received written comments from DHS that
are reprinted

in appendix III. In addition, we received technical comments and
clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate. DHS generally
agreed with our recommendations.

We will provide copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security and other interested parties. Copies will also be provided to
others upon request. In addition, this report is available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
5129490 or [email protected]. Major contributors to this report were
Kimberly Gianopoulos, Assistant Director; Peter J. Del Toro; Robert
Yetvin; and Gerard Burke.

Sincerely yours,

George H. Stalcup Director, Strategic Issues

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To achieve our objectives, we reviewed training at the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) at both the departmental and component levels.
When examining training at the departmental level, we collected, reviewed,
and analyzed the department's training rules, procedures, policies, and
organizational charts; departmental, human capital, and training strategic
plans; human capital and training management directives; Internet and
intranet Web pages; and other relevant documents. To further our
understanding of training at DHS and the issues and challenges involved,
we interviewed training and human capital officials in the Office of the
Chief Human Capital Officer and the leaders and coleaders of DHS's
training councils and groups. We also observed the January 2005 meeting of
the Training Leaders Council. We supplemented our review of departmental
training at DHS by examining the department's effort to use training
related to MAXHR to foster transformation and cultural change in the
department.

In addition, we reviewed training at major organizational components in
DHS and selected the six largest components based on staff size and
budget. Using these criteria, we reviewed training at Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (including the Federal Air Marshal Service, the
Federal Protective Service, and the Leadership Development Center), the
Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security
Administration. See figure 5 for a depiction of the DHS organizational
structure in place during the time of our review. These components
collectively represent about 95 percent of the total staff at DHS. We also
included the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center because of the
special role it plays in training employees from other DHS components.

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Figure 5: DHS Components Included in Our Review

Source: GAO representation of DHS information.

Note: This figure does not depict all components and entities in the
department, but is intended to provide a general framework within which to
present the components and centers included in our review. The
organizational structure depicted above was in place during our review,
and does not reflect actual or proposed changes related to DHS's Second
Stage Review.

When examining training at selected components, we reviewed
component-level strategic, human capital, and training plans when
available; training budget requests and expenditure documents; training
procedures, policies, and organizational charts; rules and policies for
identifying and prioritizing training programs; Internet and intranet Web
pages; selected training course materials; and other relevant documents

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

produced by these components. To further our understanding of training at
the component level, we also interviewed training officials at each of the
selected components and identified these individuals based on their
knowledge, experience, and leadership roles. We conducted our interviews
at component headquarters or field offices located in the Washington,
D.C., area. In addition, as part of our review of DHS's efforts to foster
transformation and cultural change, we observed training related to CBP's
"One Face at the Border" initiative in northern Virginia.

To help determine whether DHS used a strategic approach in planning and
evaluating its training activities at the departmental or component
levels, we referenced criteria contained in our guide for assessing
strategic training and development efforts in the federal government.1
This guide outlines a framework for assessing training efforts, consisting
of a set of principles and key questions that federal agencies can use to
ensure that their training investments are targeted strategically and not
wasted on efforts that are irrelevant, duplicative, or ineffective. We
selected our case examples based on their suitability for demonstrating
specific strategic training practices. Other components within DHS may, or
may not, be engaged in similar practices. To determine whether DHS
followed leading management practices in planning and implementing
departmentwide training, we also drew on our previous work on strategic
planning and effective management practices.

We did not include within our scope training intended for audiences
external to DHS, and we generally covered training and training management
in effect during the period in which we did our work. We conducted our
work from November 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft
of this report from DHS, which are reprinted in appendix III. The comments
are addressed in the Agency Comments section of this report.

1 GAO-04-546G.

Appendix II: "One Face at the Border" Training at U.S. Customs and Border
Protection

One of the initial goals for creating DHS was to better protect the United
States from terrorists entering the country, and ports of entry are the
means through which terrorists can enter. The creation of CBP within DHS
merged border inspection functions at U.S. ports of entry, which had
previously been performed by three separate agencies. Known as "One Face
at the Border," this initiative created the positions of CBP officer and
CBP agriculture specialist that combined aspects of three former inspector
functions. This initiative aimed to improve coordination and communication
of inspections to better protect the nation's borders from terrorists as
well as to improve entry for legitimate travel and trade.

To successfully make the transition to these new positions, significant
training was needed. Specifically, CBP created a series of training
courses to provide former U.S. Customs and former Immigration and
Naturalization Service officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to
carry out the responsibilities of this new position. In addition, CBP
officers received training to meet CBP's new mission priority of terrorism
prevention. Although the emphasis was on cross-training legacy officers,
the new curriculum was also geared to new hires. Because agricultural
inspections are more specialized, CBP officers receive training sufficient
to enable them to identify potential agricultural threats, make initial
regulatory decisions, and determine when to make referrals to CBP
agriculture specialists. More detailed agricultural inspections are
performed by these specialists who have substantial training and
background in agricultural issues.

A variety of training delivery methods were used (e.g., e-learning and
classroom) and these training methods were reinforced with extensive
onthe-job training. In addition to traditional content areas (e.g.,
cross-training for former U.S. Customs officers includes courses on
immigration fundamentals and immigration law), training courses also
covered CBP's new priority mission of preventing terrorism (e.g., training
in detecting possible terrorists and fraudulent documents, honing
interviewing skills, and making appropriate referrals to staff for
additional inspection). CBP emphasizes on-the-job training in an effort
not to place inspectors on the job without direct supervisory and tutorial
backup. Training for new recruits has also been modified to include a
preacademy orientation program at the port location where the recruit will
eventually work before he or she receives academy training. This is a
72-day course for CBP officers and a 46-day course for CBP agriculture
specialists.

CBP's main strategy to prepare for field delivery of training was to
provide extensive train-the-trainer courses so that trainers could return
to their

Appendix II: "One Face at the Border" Training at U.S. Customs and Border
Protection

field sites and instruct officers there. Training priorities were
established with the idea of spacing the training out so that field
offices would not be overwhelmed. For example, CBP rolled out its primary
cross-training to airports, while antiterrorism training was rolled out to
land borders.

Officials reported that cross-training benefited CBP officers since they
have gained more knowledge by learning both immigration and customs laws
and procedures. This increase in knowledge has the potential benefit of
providing more variety in job tasks as well as increasing the
opportunities for advancement since an officer can now apply for
supervisory-level positions that had previously been open only to former
U.S. Customs or Immigration and Naturalization Service officers.

Change has not come about without challenges, however, as many officers
were reported to have resisted changes to their responsibilities, mainly
related to the difficulties in learning a new set of procedures and laws.
Officials noted that there has been an enormous amount of required
training for CBP officers, and it can sometimes be overwhelming. For
former officers, in addition to completing an extensive cross-training
schedule and new training related to terrorism prevention, there are many
other required courses related to their mission. For example, training
modules are required in areas such as body scanning, hazardous materials,
cargo inspection, and seized assets.

Although staffing challenges may ultimately be relieved with trained
officers able to perform dual inspections, officials noted that it has
been extremely difficult to take staff off-line to complete the "One Face
at the Border" training. One official said that classes have been very
difficult to schedule because of the constant pressure to staff
operations. For example, in one case, a class was canceled right after it
began because the trainees were pulled out to staff their inspection
booths. This official also noted that trainers have had to be very
flexible to accommodate staff schedules to ensure that training occurs.

                        Appendix III: Comments from the
                        Department of Homeland Security

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                                 RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***