Department of Energy: Actions Necessary To Improve DOE's Training Program
(Chapter Report, 02/12/99, GAO/RCED-99-56).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Energy's (DOE) training program and the changes that are
needed to address those problems, focusing on: (1) DOE's current process
for setting its training budget; (2) opportunities to reduce the costs
associated with DOE's training program; and (3) DOE's draft plan for
training its employees in the future.

GAO noted that: (1) DOE has not completed any of the critical steps
identified in the Office of Personnel Management's and its own guidance
that lead to the development of a sound and defensible training budget;
(2) for instance, DOE has not defined the training needs for various
occupations, including program managers and contractor oversight
specialists; (3) in addition, DOE employees have generally not completed
individual development plans, and DOE offices have generally not
prepared annual training plans; (4) DOE could reduce its training costs
by eliminating certain nonmandatory training and reducing duplicative
and nonstandardized training across the Department; (5) about 90 percent
of DOE's training, according to a departmental estimate, is not mandated
by laws or regulations, but DOE has not developed criteria on the type
of nonmandatory training that is appropriate; (6) as a result, DOE
offers a wide range of nonmandatory training courses, such as a course
on determining social styles in the workplace and one on employees
facing mid-life questions; (7) furthermore, because DOE and its
contractors independently develop and deliver training, duplicate
courses exist and nonstandardized training occurs across the department;
(8) DOE's draft training plan has several shortcomings that may preclude
it from improving departmental training over fiscal years 1999 through
2001, as intended; (9) for example, the draft plan does not
realistically estimate what overall costs and overall savings will
result from the plan, how the plan will be financed, given DOE's
decentralized training resources, and how DOE's training centers of
excellence will eliminate duplicative training, as intended; (10)
moreover, even though DOE spent about 85 percent of its fiscal year 1997
training expenditures on contractor employees, the draft training plan
does not address the steps necessary to improve contractor training; and
(11) DOE officials stated that they are aware of these shortcomings and
intend to address them in the final plan.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-56
     TITLE:  Department of Energy: Actions Necessary To Improve DOE's 
             Training Program
      DATE:  02/12/99
   SUBJECT:  Federal employees
             Human resources training
             Training utilization
             Contractor personnel
             Education or training costs
             Cost control
             Standards and standardization
             Strategic planning
             Redundancy

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives

February 1999

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - ACTIONS
NECESSARY TO IMPROVE DOE'S
TRAINING PROGRAM

GAO/RCED-99-56

DOE's Training Program

(141214)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE - Department of Energy
  IDP - Individual Development Plan

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-281789

February 12, 1999

The Honorable Ron Packard
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
 and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

As requested, we examined the problems in the Department of Energy's
training program and the changes that are needed to address those
problems. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Energy; and the Director, Office of
Management and Budget.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The Department of Energy (DOE) spent a total of about $379 million in
fiscal year 1997-- the most recent year for which cost data are
available--on training (about $57 million for federal employees and
about $322 million for contractor employees).  This total represents
a reduction of about $175 million in the amount DOE spent on training
in fiscal year 1995.  However, GAO reports issued in 1997 and 1998 on
DOE's training program showed that further cost reductions and
management improvements are achievable.  As a result, the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, House Committee on
Appropriations, asked GAO to determine the problems in DOE's training
program and the changes that are needed to address those problems. 
Specifically, this report (1) discusses DOE's current process for
setting its training budget, (2) identifies opportunities to reduce
the costs associated with DOE's training program, and (3) evaluates
DOE's draft plan for training its employees in the future. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Within DOE, federal and contractor training is provided through a
decentralized training structure.  DOE's headquarters offices, field
offices, and contractors all have their own training programs and
budgets and dedicated staffs.  The decentralization of DOE training
has led to the identification of certain problems, which the
Department documented in a 1995 training review.  Those problems
included duplication and waste associated with the development and
delivery of both federal and contractor training and a lack of
consistency in the training provided across the Department.  The
review concluded, among other things, that if a DOE-wide training
program were developed, tens of millions of dollars in annual
training costs could be avoided.  During 1995, DOE developed a
strategic plan to correct its training problems.  According to DOE
officials, however, the plan was not entirely successful because of a
lack of funding.  In November 1997, DOE started drafting a new
training plan that it hopes will be made final early in calendar year
1999.  The draft training plan lays out a strategy for training DOE
employees over 3 fiscal years (1999 through 2001). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

DOE has not completed any of the critical steps identified in the
Office of Personnel Management's and its own guidance that lead to
the development of a sound and defensible training budget.  For
instance, DOE has not defined the training needs for various
occupations, including program managers and contractor oversight
specialists.  In addition, DOE employees have generally not completed
individual development plans, and DOE offices have generally not
prepared annual training plans. 

DOE could reduce its training costs by eliminating certain
nonmandatory training and reducing duplicative and nonstandardized
training across the Department.  About 90 percent of DOE's training,
according to a departmental estimate, is not mandated by laws and/or
regulations, but DOE has not developed criteria on the type of
nonmandatory training that is appropriate.  As a result, DOE offers a
wide range of nonmandatory training courses, such as a course on
determining social styles in the workplace and one on employees
facing mid-life questions.  Furthermore, because DOE and its
contractors independently develop and deliver training, duplicate
courses exist and nonstandardized training occurs across the
Department. 

DOE's draft training plan has several shortcomings that may preclude
it from improving departmental training over fiscal years 1999
through 2001, as intended.  For example, the draft plan does not
realistically estimate what overall costs and overall savings will
result from the plan; how the plan will be financed, given DOE's
decentralized training resources; and how DOE's training centers of
excellence will eliminate duplicative training, as intended.\1
Moreover, even though DOE spent about 85 percent of its fiscal year
1997 training expenditures on contractor employees, the draft
training plan does not address the steps necessary to improve
contractor training.  DOE officials stated that they are aware of
these shortcomings and intend to address them in the final plan. 


--------------------
\1 The mission of the centers of excellence is to provide
high-quality training on topical areas that cut across the entire
Department. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      DOE'S BUDGETING FOR TRAINING
      COULD BE IMPROVED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Office of Personnel Management and DOE guidance establish specific
critical steps to be followed in developing a training budget.  GAO
found that DOE has not completed any of these critical steps.  The
first step is to complete an assessment of occupational training
needs.  Occupational needs refer to the training needs of groups of
individuals, such as program managers and contractor oversight
specialists.  GAO found that such an assessment had not been
conducted throughout DOE primarily because the applicable
departmental order on federal employee training contained no
provision for doing one.  GAO believes that certain groups within DOE
would benefit from such an assessment because of the important nature
of their work.  Those groups include those involved in program
management, project management, and contractor oversight.  Managers
throughout DOE told GAO that the lack of skilled staff in those
groups is one of the Department's most fundamental problems. 

After training needs have been established, individual employee
development plans should be completed, according to DOE training
officials.  Collectively, these plans define the total training needs
of individuals within the Department and are to be used in developing
DOE offices' annual training plans.  GAO found, however, in reviewing
six DOE offices, that only about 33 percent of employees had
completed a development plan.  Recognizing that few employee
development plans were being completed, DOE training officials
established a goal in November 1998 of having 90 percent of DOE
employees complete such a plan by December 31, 1999.  Some DOE
training managers interviewed were not aware that the Department's
order on federal employee training requires the completion of a
development plan, with certain exceptions, for 100 percent of its
employees until so informed by GAO.\2

On the basis, in part, of the information in employee development
plans, DOE offices should prepare annual training plans.  According
to DOE, the offices' annual training plans provide the basis for any
request for budget funds.  GAO found that training plans had not been
completed for five of the six offices it reviewed.  For the sixth
office, the plan did not contain certain relevant information,
including the estimated number of employees to be trained, the type
of training necessary, and the resources required to provide that
training. 


--------------------
\2 The exceptions identified in the DOE order on federal employee
training include temporary employees and others for whom, by the
nature of their position, training and development would result in
minimal benefit to the Department. 


      DOE'S SPENDING ON TRAINING
      COULD BE REDUCED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

GAO identified two opportunities for reducing the costs associated
with training DOE and contractor employees.  First, some nonmandatory
training could be reduced or eliminated.  According to a departmental
estimate, about 90 percent of the training offered by DOE offices is
not mandated by laws and/or regulations, and DOE has not developed
criteria on what type of nonmandatory training is appropriate.  Some
nonmandatory training is beneficial for career growth and
professional development, such as courses on effective writing and
oral presentation skills.  However, the benefits of other
nonmandatory training, such as (1) determining social styles in the
workplace, (2) employees facing mid-life questions, and (3) defensive
driving, seemed less clear. 

Second, DOE's headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors
have developed and delivered duplicative courses and nonstandardized
training across the Department.  In an era of employee downsizing and
reduced budgets, it seems inefficient to permit DOE's headquarters
offices, field offices, and contractors to develop and deliver
courses such as project management, hazardous worker training, and
occupational safety and health independently.  Rather than develop a
course once and deliver it departmentwide, DOE's decentralized
training structure permits a generally applicable course to be
developed many times over and delivered in different ways. 


      DOE'S TRAINING PLAN COULD BE
      IMPROVED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

In 1997 and 1998, DOE drafted a new training plan that lays out a
strategy for training federal employees over fiscal years 1999
through 2001.  The plan contains 18 performance expectations to be
accomplished.  Those expectations include, for instance, that (1)
DOE's average training expenditures per employee will be in alignment
with similar federal agencies and the private sector by December 31,
1999, and (2) six training centers of excellence will be established
by December 31, 2000. 

However, the new plan, as currently drafted, has several
shortcomings.  First, GAO found that the plan's estimate of the
overall costs to implement the plan and the overall savings to be
achieved from it were not realistic.  According to DOE training
officials, it is important that a realistic estimate be included in
the plan to solicit the support needed from senior DOE management and
the funding needed from the Congress.  GAO found, however, that the
plan provides a limited projection of the overall costs to implement
the plan and overstates the overall savings to be realized from it. 
For example, DOE attributed about $1.7 million in cost savings in the
plan to one of the Department's two existing centers of excellence
but did not offset that cost savings against the approximately $1.9
million in costs to operate the center.  Thus, it is unclear whether
the plan's savings will exceed the plan's costs. 

Second, the plan does not explain how DOE's decentralized training
resources will be committed to finance the plan.  At present, few DOE
offices have actively participated in developing the performance
expectations contained in the plan.  Whether other DOE offices that
have not been actively involved in the plan will financially support
it, when completed, remains to be seen.  For the plan to be
successful, full support from offices throughout DOE will be
necessary. 

Third, the plan does not present a policy regarding the use of the
Department's centers of excellence.  The centers are a central
feature of the training plan.  By operating the centers, DOE intends
to effectively eliminate duplicative training within the Department. 
However, the plan does not present a policy on the use of the centers
or mandate that the centers will be the sole source for training
within the Department on a topical area, such as project management
or occupational safety and health.  As a result, one center--the
National Environmental Training Office--has not eliminated but has
actually delivered training courses that already existed within the
Department. 

Fourth, the plan does not identify what steps should be taken to
improve contractor employees' training.  DOE has been aware of
contractor training problems since as early as 1995.  In addition,
DOE spent about 85 percent of its fiscal year 1997 training funds on
contractor training.  However, DOE has not addressed contractor
training problems in any of its training plans.  Specifically, GAO
noted that the new draft training plan does not identify the need for
DOE to (1) establish a departmental order on developing contractor
training programs and budgets; (2) incorporate a standard set of
performance measures into the Department's performance-based
contracts regarding contractor training efficiency and effectiveness;
and (3) clarify the roles and responsibilities of DOE's headquarters
offices for the oversight of contractor training departmentwide.  DOE
officials stated that they are aware of the shortcomings in its
training plan and now intend to address them in the final plan. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

In order to improve DOE's training program, reduce training costs,
and improve the draft training plan, GAO is making a series of
recommendations in this report, including having the Secretary (1)
expeditiously conduct a comprehensive assessment of occupational
training needs throughout the Department; (2) establish criteria on
the type of nonmandatory training that is appropriate and review and
eliminate nonmandatory training courses given across DOE that do not
meet those criteria; (3) standardize the development and delivery of
training that is generally applicable across DOE; (4) realistically
estimate the overall costs to implement and the overall savings to be
achieved from the Department's new training plan; and (5) identify in
the new training plan the steps necessary to improve contractor
training performance.  At a minimum, those steps should include
incorporating a standard set of performance measures for training
into the Department's performance-based contracts. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE for its review
and comment.  DOE agreed with the report's recommendations, except
for GAO's recommendation that the Department expeditiously complete a
comprehensive assessment of occupational training needs.  DOE
indicated that it had already completed an assessment of occupational
training needs for certain occupational groups and had initiated a
new program to train research and development program managers.  DOE
also stated, however, it will only continue conducting these
assessments as funding constraints and departmental priorities allow. 
While GAO is encouraged by the actions that DOE has already taken,
GAO is concerned that funding constraints and/or other departmental
priorities may, in some way, hinder the completion of a comprehensive
assessment of occupational needs.  As pointed out in this report, a
lack of skilled staff is one of the most fundamental problems in the
Department.  Accordingly, GAO continues to believe that DOE should
expeditiously complete a comprehensive assessment of occupational
training needs.  DOE's complete response is presented in appendix I. 


PERSPECTIVE ON DOE TRAINING
============================================================ Chapter 1

Within the Department of Energy (DOE), federal and contractor
employee training is provided through a decentralized training
structure.  DOE's headquarters offices, field offices, and
contractors all have their own training programs and budgets and
dedicated staffs.  These programs provide training to federal and
contractor employees on a wide variety of subjects.  Comparing fiscal
year 1995 and fiscal year 1997, DOE's expenditures on training
decreased by about $175 million, or about 32 percent.  A comparison
of DOE's training expenditures with other federal agencies and with
the private sector indicates that DOE's training expenditures could
be lower.  DOE has also recognized this. 


   DOE'S SYSTEM OF TRAINING
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

Because DOE emphasizes decentralized management, it assigns the main
responsibility for employee training to individual DOE offices and
contractors.  These organizations, in turn, have established their
own training programs and budgets with dedicated staffs to provide
employee training.  At DOE's headquarters, the Office of Management
and Administration has the main responsibility for DOE-wide training
issues.  This office is responsible, for instance, for establishing
DOE's training policies, procedures, and management plans. 

The administration of training, however, largely falls within the
purview of DOE's individual offices and contractors.  Specifically,
these organizations are responsible for planning, providing resources
for, developing and delivering, and reporting on the training given
to their employees.  In addition, these organizations are responsible
for ensuring the efficient and effective management of their training
programs. 

Generally, these organizations offer their employees three types of
training:  general, career development, and performance development. 
General training, which applies to all employees within the
Department, includes courses on such subjects as equal employment
opportunity, ethics, and security.  Career development training,
which supports the career growth of employees, includes courses on
such subjects as time and stress management.  Performance development
training, which supports the acquisition or improvement of
work-related skills, includes a wide range of courses, from technical
courses on subjects such as nuclear physics and chemistry to
nontechnical courses on back care and hearing conservation. 


   DOE'S ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON
   TRAINING
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

The Department spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually
training federal and contractor employees.  According to DOE data,
there has been a significant reduction in DOE's training
expenditures--about 32 percent--comparing fiscal years 1995, and 1997
(see table 1.1). 



                               Table 1.1
                
                  DOE Expenditures on Training, Fiscal
                             Years 1995-97

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                     Training expenditures by fiscal
                                                   year
                                    ----------------------------------
Type of employee                          1995        1996        1997
----------------------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Federal                                  $93.4       $93.5       $57.2
Contractor                               461.0       382.3       322.2
======================================================================
Total expenditures                      $554.4      $475.8      $379.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The figures in the table include the costs of providing the
training in-house or contracting out for training.  These figures
also include the cost of employees' salaries and, for the most part,
travel costs to attend training. 

Source:  DOE. 

The reduction in DOE's annual training expenditures from fiscal year
1995 through fiscal year 1997 can be attributed to several factors. 
Those factors include (1) about a 13-percent decrease in the number
of DOE and contractor employees; (2) greater use of advanced training
technologies, such as computer-based learning; and (3)
congressionally mandated reductions in training funds. 


   DOE'S TRAINING EXPENDITURES
   COULD BE LOWER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

DOE's training expenditures could be lower, according to fiscal year
1997 data.\3

First, the amount spent on employee training varied widely among DOE
field offices that perform similar functions.  For example, according
to DOE, the Department's Richland and Savannah River Operations
Offices offered similar training, including courses on radiological
worker training.  However, the Savannah River Operations Office spent
less than $2,300 on training per federal employee while the Richland
Operations Office spent over $4,500 per employee.  Second, DOE's
average training expenditure per federal employee was higher than
most other federal agencies or major private sector companies
reviewed by the American Society for Training and Development's
Benchmarking Forum.\4

Specifically, the Society's Benchmarking Forum collected and analyzed
fiscal year 1997 training cost data from numerous organizations,
including DOE, several other federal agencies, and nearly 60
companies in the private sector.  The data showed that DOE's average
training expenditure of $1,808 per federal employee was higher than
most other federal agencies reviewed (see table 1.2).  The data also
showed that DOE's average training expenditure per federal employee
was about $300 higher than the private sector average.  The private
sector companies included businesses of various types, including
American Telephone and Telegraph and the Dow Chemical Company. 



                               Table 1.2
                
                 Comparison of Federal Agency Training
                         Data, Fiscal Year 1997

                                            Training data
                                --------------------------------------
                                                        Total training
                                         Number of    expenditures per
Agency                                   employees            employee
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Department of Energy                        15,290              $1,808
Centers for Disease Control                  7,490                $689
 and Prevention
Federal Aviation                            48,000              $2,378
 Administration
Food and Drug Administration                 9,097              $1,387
National Institutes of Health               16,500                $537
Tennessee Valley Authority                  15,211              $1,485
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO obtained the data from the agencies listed. 

Similarly, for contractor employees, DOE's training expenditures
could be lower, according to fiscal year 1997 data.  First, the
amount spent on contractor employee training varied widely at DOE
locations that perform similar functions.  For instance, the
contractor supporting DOE's Richland Operations Office spent an
average of about $1,510 per employee while the contractor supporting
the Savannah River Operations Office spent an average of about $3,500
per employee.  Second, the average training expenditure per DOE
contractor employee during fiscal year 1997 was about $130 higher
than the private sector average.\5

DOE has also analyzed its training costs relative to these other
organizations and believes the analysis represents a good comparison
of training data.  According to a DOE training official, the analysis
shows, for instance, that DOE's costs per training day are still too
high compared with those of private sector companies. 


--------------------
\3 Information on training costs for fiscal year 1997 was the latest
data available. 

\4 The Forum is a private consortium of organizations with a strong
commitment to sharing training cost information and seeking best
training practices. 

\5 A training expenditure of $130 per employee multiplied by 105,297
(the number of DOE contractor employees in fiscal year 1997) equals a
training cost of about $13.7 million. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE indicated that its
current training expenditure level of 2.5 percent to 3.0 percent of
payroll was comparable to similar, technology-intensive, large,
private companies.  We noted, however, that DOE's average training
expenditure per federal employee was higher than most other federal
agencies or major private sector companies reviewed by the American
Society for Training and Development's Benchmarking Forum.  DOE did
not dispute that information. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5

As agreed with the Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, House Committee on Appropriations, we determined the
problems that exist with DOE's training program and the changes that
are needed to address those problems.  Specifically, this report (1)
discusses DOE's current process for setting its training budget, (2)
identifies opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE's
training program, and (3) evaluates DOE's draft plan for training the
Department's employees in the future. 

To review the current process for setting the training budget, we
contacted both DOE headquarters and field office officials.  At DOE
headquarters, we held extensive discussions with officials within the
Office of Training and Human Resource Development.  This office has
the lead responsibility for drafting a new training plan that, when
completed in early calendar year 1999, will lay out a strategy for
improving DOE employee training over fiscal years 1999 through 2001. 
We also held discussions with officials on the Department's Training
and Development Management Council.  This council is responsible for
overseeing the efforts to improve DOE's training program.  In
addition, we interviewed officials and reviewed training activities
of six DOE headquarters offices--the Offices of Defense Programs;
Environment, Safety, and Health; Energy Information Administration;
Environmental Management; Science (formerly Energy Research); and
Fossil Energy.  These offices were selected because, according to
their staffing levels, they are some of the largest offices within
DOE headquarters.  We further held discussions with officials at
selected DOE field locations, including officials at the Department's
two training centers of excellence--the Nonproliferation and National
Security Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the National
Environmental Training Office in Aiken, South Carolina.\6 Generally,
a center of excellence is a DOE organization that has been selected
for its training, development, and technical expertise in a topical
area that cuts across the entire Department.\7

To identify opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE's
training program, we reviewed various departmental documents.  These
included, but were not limited to, (1) a DOE memorandum documenting
the results of the Department's 1995 training review; (2) DOE's 1995
and 1996 strategic training implementation plans; (3) DOE's 1998
draft training plan; and (4) the minutes of the Training and
Development Management Council.  We also relied on the GAO work done
under three previous assignments:  (1) Department of Energy: 
Training Cost Data for Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1997
(GAO/RCED-97-140R, May 6, 1997); (2) Department of Energy:  Status of
DOE's Efforts to Improve Training (GAO/RCED-97-178R, June 27, 1997);
and (3) Department of Energy:  DOE Contractor Employee Training
(GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998). 

To further identify opportunities to reduce DOE's training costs, we
compared DOE's training costs with those of other federal agencies
and the private sector.  Specifically, we contacted training
officials both inside and outside the federal government.  Within the
federal government, these contacts included training officials with
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of
Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority.  These agencies, as well as DOE, voluntarily
provided training cost information to us and a private organization,
the American Society for Training and Development's Benchmarking
Forum.  Outside the federal government, we contacted an official with
the American Society for Training and Development's Benchmarking
Forum, which had collected training cost information from nearly 60
private sector companies.  From the contacts made, training cost
information was obtained, analyzed, and compared with training cost
information we had obtained from DOE.  Generally, comparing training
cost information from DOE and other federal agencies and the private
sector appeared appropriate.  All organizations, for instance, offer
their employees a certain amount of technical skills training.\8 The
training cost information we obtained was for fiscal year 1997 and
was the latest data available. 

To evaluate DOE's draft plan for training the Department's employees
in the future, we contacted federal training officials both inside
and outside of the Department.  Externally, these contacts included
training officials with the Office of Personnel Management; Defense
Information Systems Agency; Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Within DOE headquarters, these
contacts included officials with the Offices of Science;
Environmental Management; Environment, Safety, and Health; Field
Management; Procurement and Assistance Management; and Human
Resources Management.  At DOE field locations, these contacts
included officials at the Nonproliferation and National Security
Institute; National Environmental Training Office; Richland
Operations Office; Rocky Flats Field Office; and Savannah River
Operations Office.  In all cases, these officials were contacted to
obtain their views on the types of training problems DOE should be
addressing in its draft training plan. 

We also reviewed various reports that have dealt with improving
federal employee training.  These included, among others, Getting
Results Through Learning, Human Resource Development Council, June
1997; Leadership for Change:  Human Resource Development in the
Federal Government, U.  S.  Merit Systems Protection Board, July
1995; and Leadership for America:  Rebuilding the Public Service, The
National Commission on the Public Service, 1989. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOE for its review and comment. 
DOE's comments are included as appendix I and are discussed in the
chapters where appropriate. 

We conducted our work from June 1998 through January 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\6 The Nonproliferation and National Security Institute's mission is
to provide tactical training to DOE contractors' protective forces
throughout the nation.  The National Environmental Training Office's
mission is to provide high-quality technical environmental training
to federal and contractor employees across DOE. 

\7 Examples of topical area training include environmental
management; safeguards and security; project management; occupational
safety and health; and hazardous worker training. 

\8 The American Society for Training and Development's Benchmarking
Forum defined technical skills training as job-specific training that
focuses on procedures, including the use of technology, to create
products, deliver services, or engage in processes.  Technical skills
training is provided to workers who use technology or machinery in
their jobs. 


DOE'S MANAGEMENT OF TRAINING COULD
BE IMPROVED
============================================================ Chapter 2

Two important aspects associated with the management of DOE training
could be improved.  Those two are how DOE develops its training
budgets and how it spends its training funds.  We found that DOE has
not successfully completed any of the critical steps necessary to
develop a sound and defensible training budget.  Specifically, we
noted that occupational training needs have not been defined
throughout the Department and incorporated into employees' individual
development plans (IDP); IDPs have generally not been prepared and
used to support DOE offices' annual training plans; and annual
training plans have generally not been prepared and used to support
DOE's annual training budgets.  With respect to how DOE spends its
training funds, we identified two factors that account for the high
costs associated with DOE training.  Those factors are that DOE
offices and contractors offer a high percentage of training that is
not mandated by laws and/or regulations and that DOE's offices and
contractors independently develop and deliver training.  DOE, for its
part, is aware of the problems associated with its budgeting for and
expenditure of funds on training and is considering corrective
actions.  However, our review raised questions regarding the
direction and/or pace of DOE's actions. 


   DOE'S BUDGET PROCESS FOR
   TRAINING COULD BE IMPROVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

According to the Office of Personnel Management and DOE guidance,
certain steps are critical in developing a training budget.  First,
training needs should be defined.  Second, the training needs should
be incorporated into employees' IDPs.  Third, the IDPs should be used
to prepare annual training plans.  The successful completion of these
steps supports the development of sound and defensible training
budgets.  We found, however, that DOE has not successfully completed
any of these steps.  Specifically, we found the following: 

  -- Occupational training needs\9 have not been defined throughout
     the Department and incorporated into employees' IDPs;

  -- IDPs have generally not been prepared and used to support DOE's
     annual training plans; and

  -- Annual training plans have generally not been prepared and used
     to support DOE's annual training budgets. 

As a result, DOE's annual training budgets are not directly tied to
the training needs of the Department.  Instead, DOE's annual training
budgets have generally been based on the amount of funding received
in previous fiscal years. 


--------------------
\9 Occupational needs are the training needs of groups of
individuals, such as program managers and contractor oversight
specialists. 


      TRAINING NEEDS HAVE NOT BEEN
      DEFINED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.1

A training needs assessment is a critical initial step in developing
a training budget.  According to Office of Personnel Management
regulations, an agency needs to assess its occupational training
needs periodically.\10 The assessment evaluates what performance is
desired within an agency and what performance presently exists.  When
a gap exists, the assessment identifies the training necessary to
elevate performance to the level desired.  We found that DOE has not
conducted a comprehensive assessment of occupational needs throughout
the Department.\11

The primary reason that a comprehensive assessment has not been
conducted throughout DOE is that the Department's order on federal
employee training contains no provision for doing one.  Specifically,
the training order outlines the objectives and responsibilities for
federal employee training throughout the Department.  It also
outlines the components essential to the administration of employee
training.  The order does not, however, require that occupational
training needs be assessed.\12 DOE training officials indicated that
such an assessment had been included in the preceding DOE order on
employee training but was deleted from the current order under the
Department's paperwork reduction program. 

During this and previous reviews of DOE activities, we have
identified several departmental occupational groups that would most
likely benefit from an assessment of occupational training needs. 
For instance, we believe that property managers may not be adequately
trained.  Supporting that view, we found that DOE recently surveyed
145 property managers and determined that 65 (or about 45 percent)
had received no formal property management training.  DOE also
recently surveyed its field locations to determine if project
managers are being properly trained.  DOE guidance requires that
employees who are project managers must be certified as possessing
certain skills and receiving certain training.  However, preliminary
data show that many project managers have not received certification. 
For instance, DOE's Savannah River Operations Office reported that
only 2 of its 33 project managers had been certified.  We further
reported that managers throughout DOE believe that the lack of
skilled staff in program, project, and contractor oversight positions
is one of the Department's most fundamental problems.\13

Recognizing that certain occupational groups should have their
training needs assessed, DOE, in November 1998, proposed a revised
order and manual on federal employee training.  The proposed manual
states that an occupational needs assessment must be completed at
least every 5 years once the revised order and manual are made
final.\14 In addition, the manual notes that such an assessment must
include, but not be limited to, scientific and technical,
acquisition, project management, and financial management functions. 
The DOE training official responsible for drafting the revised order
and manual advised us that the 5-year assessment cycle was
arbitrarily chosen.  Furthermore, the sequence in which various
occupational groups will be assessed has not yet been decided.  DOE
officials expect the revised order to be made final in the spring of
1999. 


--------------------
\10 5 C.F.R.  410.203.  This regulation is nonspecific on the
frequency of an occupational training needs assessment but suggests
that such an assessment could be done as often as annually. 

\11 DOE's National Environmental Training Office has conducted an
occupational needs assessment for environmental management training
for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. 

\12 DOE Order 360.1 specifies that personnel involved in the safe
operation of defense nuclear facilities will have their technical
skills assessed and will receive continuing training to maintain
certain necessary skills. 

\13 Department of Energy:  Opportunity to Improve Management of Major
System Acquisitions (GAO/RCED-97-17, Nov.  26, 1996). 

\14 The manual also states that each DOE office must identify
annually its critical needs that, when met, will be most effective in
improving organizational and workplace performance. 


      IDPS HAVE NOT BEEN PREPARED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.2

After training needs have been established, IDPs should be prepared. 
According to DOE's training order, an IDP is required for all
employees within 60 days after they join the Department or transfer
to a new position, and these IDPs should be reviewed and updated
annually.\15 The IDPs provide the mechanism to define total
individual training needs within the Department and are to be used in
preparing DOE offices' annual training plans.  Only a small
percentage of the employees in the DOE offices we reviewed have
completed an IDP. 

During 1998, we reviewed the training practices followed by six DOE
headquarters offices.  Only one office had IDPs completed for more
than half of its employees.  The six offices provided us with the
estimates of completed IDPs shown in table 2.1. 



                               Table 2.1
                
                Percentage of Employees in Selected DOE
                Headquarters Offices Who Have Completed
                        an IDP, Fiscal Year 1998

                                           Percentage of employees who
Headquarters office                              have completed an IDP
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Defense Programs                                                    18
Environment, Safety, and Health                                     81
Energy Information Administration                                   36
Environmental Management                                             0
Fossil Energy                                                       30
Science                                                             40
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  DOE. 

For the six offices combined, only 33 percent of the employees had
completed an IDP. 

Recognizing that few of its employees had completed an IDP, DOE
training officials established a goal in November 1998 of having 90
percent of DOE employees with an approved IDP by December 31, 1999. 
DOE training officials explained that the 90-percent goal is based on
the belief that that may be the best percentage achievable.  Some DOE
training managers interviewed were not aware that the Department's
order on federal employee training requires the completion of an IDP,
with certain exceptions, for 100 percent of the Department's
employees until we informed them. 


--------------------
\15 DOE's training order does not require an IDP for temporary
employees and for others for whom, by the nature of their position,
training and development would result in minimal benefit to the
Department. 


      ANNUAL TRAINING PLANS HAVE
      NOT BEEN DEVELOPED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.3

Each DOE office should complete an annual training plan that is based
in part on the information contained in the IDPs, according to DOE's
training order.  This plan provides the basis for developing training
budgets.  It should also contain certain information, such as the
estimated number of employees to be trained, the type of training
necessary, and the resources required to provide that training.  We
found that the annual training plans either have not been completed
or did not contain the information necessary to justify a budget
request. 

Five of the six offices had not completed an annual training plan for
fiscal year 1998.  For the one office that had--the Office of
Environment, Safety, and Health--the plan did not contain the
information required by DOE's training order.  For instance, the plan
did not estimate the number of employees to be trained, the type of
training necessary, or the resources required to provide that
training.  Instead, the plan identified the initiatives planned for
fiscal year 1998, such as the need to continually provide employees
with efficient course registrations and accurate training records. 
The DOE training official responsible for preparing the annual
training plan explained that the plan did not contain certain
information because it had been prepared using the previous year's
annual training plan as a guide, and this plan lacked this
information.\16

Recognizing that annual training plans were not being completed or
were not being completed properly, DOE, as early as 1996, had
attempted to develop a template for the plan.  DOE envisioned that
the template would include an outline and suggested language. 
Because this template was subsequently cancelled, DOE training
officials in December 1998 immediately disseminated a copy of a
properly completed fiscal year 1999 annual training plan as the model
to be followed. 


--------------------
\16 DOE's training order was issued in May 1995 and would also have
been applicable to any annual training plans prepared in fiscal year
1997. 


   DOE'S SPENDING FOR TRAINING
   COULD BE REDUCED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

We identified two opportunities for reducing the costs associated
with DOE and contractor employees' training.  First, some
nonmandatory training could be reduced or eliminated.  According to a
departmental estimate, about 90 percent of the training offered by
DOE offices and contractors is not mandated by laws and/or
regulations.  In addition, DOE has not developed criteria on what
type of nonmandatory training is appropriate.  Some nonmandatory
training is beneficial for career growth and professional
development, such as courses on effective writing and oral
presentation skills.  However, the benefits of other nonmandatory
training, such as determining social styles in the workplace, seemed
less clear.  Second, DOE's headquarters offices, field offices, and
contractors have developed and delivered duplicative courses and
nonstandardized training across the Department.  This problem has
occurred because DOE's decentralized training structure allows
generally applicable courses, such as project management, hazardous
worker training, and occupational safety and health, to be developed
by each office and contractor. 


      TRAINING NOT MANDATED BY
      LAWS AND/OR REGULATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

Federal agencies offer various types of training to their employees,
including technical skills, executive development, supervisory
skills, and mandatory training.  We found that DOE as well as four
other federal agencies estimated their fiscal year 1997 training
expenditures by course type and provided that data to the American
Society for Training and Development's Benchmarking Forum.\17
According to these estimates, only 10 percent of DOE's fiscal year
1997 training funds were spent for federal employee training mandated
by laws and/or regulations.\18 In comparison, two other agencies
spent more and two other agencies spent less of their fiscal year
1997 funding on mandatory training.  Specifically, the Federal
Aviation Administration spent about 42 percent and the Tennessee
Valley Authority spent about 17 percent on mandatory training, while
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent about 3 percent
and the National Institutes of Health spent about 3 percent. 

In addition, some training considered by DOE contractors to be
mandated by laws and/or regulations may not in fact be legally
required.  For instance, in a 1998 report of contractor training
activities at DOE's Savannah River Plant, we found that the
contractor's internal audit office questioned the legal references
for 30 percent of the training courses listed as mandatory.\19 In
that report, we pointed out that the contractor could not provide us
with justification for each course it had considered mandated by
regulation. 

We also found that DOE has not developed criteria on what type of
nonmandatory training is appropriate.  A DOE training official
agreed, saying that there is a lot of "gray area" between what
training is appropriate and not appropriate within the Department.\20
Some nonmandatory training is beneficial for career growth and
professional development, such as courses on effective writing and
oral presentation skills.  However, the benefits of other
nonmandatory training seemed less clear.  For example, one location
offered a course to employees facing mid-life questions, another
offered a course on determining social styles in the workplace, and a
third offered a course on defensive driving. 

According to DOE training officials, while the Department estimated
that only 10 percent of its training funds are spent on mandatory
training, this estimate had not been confirmed by a detailed
analysis.  Furthermore, this estimate was only an informed estimate
and did not include the training required, for example, by DOE
orders.  These officials also stated that the type of nonmandatory
training offered is generally left up to DOE's individual offices. 
Accordingly, DOE has no immediate plans to develop a more accurate
estimate or conduct a comprehensive review of nonmandatory training
offered across the Department. 


--------------------
\17 The Benchmarking Forum gathered this information to profile the
type of training various organizations provide to their employees. 

\18 The American Society for Training and Development's Benchmarking
Forum defined mandatory training as instruction that is provided to
meet environmental safety and health requirements, equal employment
opportunity and affirmative action requirements, right-to-know, and
government-mandated training. 

\19 Department of Energy:  DOE Contractor Employee Training
(GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998). 

\20 This DOE training official added that the Department's proposed
revision to its order on federal employee training will stipulate,
however, that training must be mission-related and related to an
employee's duties to be funded. 


      INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT AND
      DELIVERY OF TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

In 1998, we reviewed the training courses that were independently
developed and delivered by DOE contractors at four field
locations.\21 The review showed that the cost per employee for these
courses varied considerably among the contractors reviewed.  For
example, one course on environmental laws and regulations varied in
cost from $72 per employee at one location to $624 per employee at
another location.  A second course on hands-on fire extinguisher use
varied in cost from $2.50 per employee at one location to $102 per
employee at another location (see table 2.2). 



                               Table 2.2
                
                 Examples of Cost per Employee for DOE
                Contractor Training Courses, Fiscal Year
                                  1997

                 Course                     Contractor at
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Oak               Rocky  Savannah
Course                             Ridge  Richland     Flats     River
------------------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Back Injury Prevention            $28.50      $108       $84       $50
Environmental Laws and              $624      $152      $192       $72
 Regulations
Hands-on Fire Extinguisher Use     $2.50      $102       Not       $48
                                                     offered
Hoisting and Rigging                $592      $328       $72      $240
Occurrence Reporting                 $84       $62       $44       $36
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  DOE. 

Various factors account for the cost differences shown in the table,
including the length of the course and the labor rate used for the
instructor who provided the training.  For instance, the course on
environmental laws and regulations varied in length from 4 to 24
hours, and the course on hands-on fire extinguisher use varied in
length from 15 minutes to 3 hours.  Consequently, employees attending
these courses received a dissimilar level of training, depending on
the location.  For some courses, for instance, Rocky Flats used an
outside vendor to provide its training at a very favorable labor
rate. 

In response to the problems associated with the independent
development and delivery of training, DOE has been working since 1995
to standardize training courses that are generally applicable across
the Department.  DOE foresaw a number of benefits to be derived from
standardization, including an overall reduction in training costs and
staff, the establishment of a consistent knowledge base among
employees, and the elimination of redundant training. 

In 1997, however, DOE abandoned its proposal to standardize training. 
At that time, DOE officials indicated that such a standardization
effort was too comprehensive in scope in view of the more than 21,000
training courses in the DOE training community.\22 DOE officials said
the Department will continue efforts to standardize training by
developing a listing of all DOE courses, called the Universal
Catalog, and establishing centers of excellence on selected topics. 
As of December 1998, neither effort has been successful in
standardizing training.  The Universal Catalog was only 35-percent
complete and more than 1 year behind schedule for completion.  In
addition, only two centers of excellence had been established,
although DOE had planned to designate four centers of excellence by
the end of the year.  According to a DOE training official, competing
DOE priorities precluded the Department from fully funding and making
greater progress on both efforts. 


--------------------
\21 Department of Energy:  DOE Contractor Employee Training
(GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998). 

\22 DOE added that with the Department facing many challenges,
including the downsizing of training personnel and decreases in the
training budget, it is limited in accomplishing what was intended. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

DOE can improve budgeting and reduce spending on training.  In the
budgetary area, DOE has not successfully completed any of the
critical steps needed to develop sound and defensible training
budgets.  Because DOE has not completed these steps, its training
budgets are not directly tied to the training needs of the
Department.  DOE also has not taken a number of actions to reduce its
training expenditures.  It has not developed criteria on what type of
nonmandatory training is appropriate within the Department, which has
led to a wide range of nonmandatory training courses being offered. 
DOE's decentralized training structure has also led to the
independent development and delivery of training courses by DOE's
headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors. 

In regard to budgeting, DOE has not conducted a comprehensive
assessment of occupational training needs throughout the Department
to better understand its training needs.  Certain occupational groups
would benefit from such an assessment, most notably those involved in
program management, property management, and contractor oversight
tasks.  In addition, DOE has not completed an IDP for all employees
required to have one by DOE order.  DOE training officials have
established a goal of completing IDPs for 90 percent of DOE employees
by December 31, 1999.  However, without some other impetus, such as
holding managers accountable for ensuring that their staff complete
IDPs, it is difficult to see how establishing a goal will have any
more success than the requirements already contained in a DOE order. 
Finally, DOE offices have either not completed annual training plans
or not completed them properly.  According to DOE, the annual
training plan provides the basis for any request for budget funds. 

Opportunities also exist for DOE to reduce its training costs. 
Specifically, DOE has not developed criteria on what type of
nonmandatory training is appropriate nor reviewed the thousands of
nonmandatory training courses offered using such criteria.  In
addition, DOE has not standardized the development and delivery of
training courses that have general application across the Department. 
This has produced unnecessary and duplicative training courses
throughout DOE. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

To improve the process for setting the training budget, we recommend
that the Secretary of Energy require

  -- the expeditious completion of a comprehensive occupational
     training needs assessment throughout the Department.  Where the
     assessment process cannot be expedited, priorities should be set
     for the order in which occupational groups will be assessed;

  -- the completion of IDPs for all departmental employees required
     to have one by DOE order; and

  -- the completion of annual training plans as required by DOE
     order. 

To reduce spending on DOE training, we recommend that the Secretary
of Energy require

  -- the establishment of criteria for what type of nonmandatory
     training is appropriate and a review and elimination of
     nonmandatory training courses given across DOE that do not meet
     those criteria; and

  -- the standardization of the development and delivery of training
     that has general application across DOE. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

DOE agreed with our recommendations, except for the one that the
Department expeditiously complete a comprehensive assessment of
occupational training needs.  In this regard, DOE indicated that it
had already completed such an assessment for certain occupational
groups and initiated a new program to rebuild a talented and
well-trained corps of research and development program managers. 
Furthermore, DOE stated it will continue conducting these assessments
as funding constraints and departmental priorities allow.  While we
are encouraged by the actions that DOE has already taken, we are
concerned that funding constraints and/or other departmental
priorities may, in some way, hinder the completion of a comprehensive
occupational needs assessment.  As we pointed out in this report, the
lack of skilled staff is one of the most fundamental problems in the
Department.  Accordingly, we continue to believe that DOE should
expeditiously complete a comprehensive assessment of occupational
training needs. 

In addition, the Department disagreed with our use of the concept of
nonmandatory training and with our discussion of whether excessive
nonmandatory training takes place in the Department.  DOE indicated
that internal DOE directives as well as professional and
international standards also impose significant training requirements
upon the Department.  DOE commented that, while this training is not
normally defined as "mandatory" by externally imposed laws or
regulations, it is required and does promote efficient as well as
safe work practices.  Nonetheless, DOE concurred in the benefits of
reviewing training courses periodically and stated it is in the
process of revising internal guidelines to better assess training,
including the nonmandatory training that is given. 


DOE'S NEW TRAINING PLAN COULD BE
IMPROVED
============================================================ Chapter 3

DOE's November 1998 draft training plan represents the Department's
most recent attempt to improve its training.  The plan lays out a
strategy for training DOE employees over 3 fiscal years (1999 through
2001).  However, it has several shortcomings.  Specifically, the plan
does not

  -- realistically estimate the overall costs to implement the plan
     and the overall savings to be achieved from it;

  -- explain how DOE's decentralized training resources will be
     committed to finance the plan;

  -- present a DOE policy regarding the use of the Department's
     centers of excellence; and

  -- identify the steps necessary to improve contractor training
     performance. 

DOE training officials told us they were aware of these shortcomings
and intend to address each of them before a final training plan is
issued. 


   DOE'S PLANS TO IMPROVE
   DEPARTMENTAL TRAINING HAVE
   EVOLVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

In May 1995, the Department reviewed its training program and found a
number of problems.  The problems cited by the review included
duplication and waste associated with the development and delivery of
both federal and contractor training and a lack of consistency in the
training provided across the Department.  The review concluded, among
other things, that if a DOE-wide training program were developed,
tens of millions of dollars in annual training costs could be
avoided. 

In response to the 1995 DOE review, the Department issued a strategic
plan in July 1995 to improve federal employee training.  DOE
indicated that it intended to eventually develop a similar document
to improve training for its contractors.  Since its issuance, the
strategic plan has had some success.  For instance, DOE has
established a new training structure that includes, for example, the
Training and Development Management Council, which is responsible for
overseeing the efforts to improve DOE's training program.  In
addition, DOE has established two training centers of excellence. 

On the other hand, DOE has not achieved many of the goals established
by the strategic plan.  For instance, DOE had intended to reduce by
50 percent the number of duplicate training courses offered by it and
its contractors.  According to DOE officials, the Department must
first enter all training courses into a central database before it
can analyze courses and reduce redundancy.\23

In July 1997, DOE decided to terminate its strategic training plan,
recognizing that it had not been entirely successful, and replace it
with a new training plan.  DOE began drafting this new training plan
in November 1997 and intends to make the plan final early in calendar
year 1999.  With the new training plan, DOE believes that further
reductions in training expenditures are possible.  In that regard,
the plan contains 18 performance expectations to be accomplished. 
Those expectations include, for instance, (1) having DOE's average
training expenditures per employee be in alignment with similar
federal agencies and the private sector by December 31, 1999; (2) not
having DOE fund the development of duplicate training courses as of
December 31, 1999; and (3) establishing six training centers of
excellence by December 31, 2000. 


--------------------
\23 According to a DOE training official, the schedule for entering
all training courses into the central database has not yet been
determined. 


   OVERALL COSTS AND OVERALL
   SAVINGS FROM THE PLAN HAVE NOT
   BEEN REALISTICALLY ESTIMATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

According to DOE's new training plan, it is important that DOE
estimate the overall dollar savings to be realized from the plan. 
Such an estimate, DOE training officials believe, is necessary to
obtain the support needed from senior DOE management and the funding
needed from the Congress.  We found, however, that the plan provides
a limited projection of the overall costs to implement the plan and
no overall estimate of the cost savings to be realized from it. 
Instead, the plan only provides certain indications of the cost
savings that are possible.  However, these estimated cost savings are
overstated.  For that reason, it in unclear whether the plan's
savings will exceed its costs. 

In the draft plan, DOE estimates that about $2 million will be needed
over fiscal years 1999 through 2001 to implement the performance
actions contained in the plan.  DOE also acknowledges that this
overall estimate is understated.  It states that cost estimates have
not yet been made final for certain key portions of the plan,
including the implementation of a DOE-wide training information
system and a technology-supported learning program.  In a March 1998
submission to the Congress, DOE estimated that the costs for these
two portions for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 would be $3.8 million
and $3.4 million, respectively.  However, no fiscal year 1999 funding
was appropriated for these two portions. 

Conversely, DOE provides no overall estimate of cost savings for the
3-year period covered by the plan.  Instead, DOE intends to wait and
see what cost savings the plan will generate.  In the plan,
nevertheless, DOE points out that about $3 million in savings were
realized during fiscal year 1998 from several initiatives supported
by the plan.  Our review determined that these savings are
overstated.  For example, the $3 million savings is based, in part,
on reported cost savings of about $1.7 million by DOE's National
Environmental Training Office in Aiken, South Carolina, for
developing training courses that were then used at other DOE
locations.  We found, however, that the $1.7 million in savings was
not offset against the approximately $1.9 million in costs to operate
the Training Office in 1998.  DOE training officials told us they
will reevaluate and validate the cost data before the plan is made
final.  The director of the Training Office added that it must be
recognized that the Training Office is only in its start-up phase and
an immediate return on investment cannot be expected. 


   DOE HAS NOT DETERMINED HOW THE
   DEPARTMENT'S DECENTRALIZED
   TRAINING RESOURCES WILL BE
   COMMITTED TO FINANCE THE PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

DOE's headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors all have
their own training programs and training budgets.  For DOE's training
plan to be successful, according to DOE, support and funding will be
needed from offices throughout the Department.  We found, however,
that the plan does not explain how or according to what formula these
DOE offices will be asked to commit funds to finance the plan. 
Moreover, we found that few DOE offices have actively participated in
the development of the performance expectations contained in that
plan.  Thus, when the plan is completed, it is unknown whether
support and funding will be available throughout the Department for
the plan. 

According to DOE, each office within the Department is responsible
for implementing the plan and will be held accountable for carrying
out the expectations in it.  In addition, each office will commit
resources to ensure that the performance expectations in the plan are
met.  The plan does not specify, however, how, or according to what
formula, these offices will be asked to commit resources to finance
the plan.  Instead, the plan indicates that DOE's Training and
Development Management Council will determine sometime in the future
how the plan will be funded.\24

While each office is responsible for the plan's implementation, few
offices have actively participated in the development of the
performance expectations contained in it.  According to the minutes
of training plan meetings, representatives from only six of DOE's
principal offices have volunteered to take the lead in developing any
of these performance expectations.  DOE training officials also told
us they did not foresee participation from any more offices. 

Once the training plan is completed, the training and development
management council intends to forward the plan to the Secretary of
Energy for endorsement.  According to DOE training officials, the
Secretary's endorsement may help offices throughout the Department
that did not participate in the plan's development to accept its
contents.  However, how the plan will be funded is not discussed in
the plan. 


--------------------
\24 The Training and Development Management Council is responsible
for overseeing the efforts to improve DOE's training program. 


   A POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF
   THE DEPARTMENT'S CENTERS OF
   EXCELLENCE HAS NOT BEEN
   DEVELOPED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

A central feature of DOE's training plan is the creation of centers
of excellence.  The mission of these centers is to provide
high-quality training on a topical area that cuts across the entire
Department.  By operating the centers of excellence, DOE intends to
eliminate the duplication of training.  We found, however, that the
training plan does not present a policy on the centers' use or
mandate that the centers will be the sole source for training on a
topical area.  Without that mandate, there is no assurance that
duplication of training will be eliminated by the centers. 

Furthermore, DOE's draft training plan provides little information on
the centers-of-excellence concept.  According to the training plan,
two centers of excellence were successfully launched in December
1997.  On the basis of that success, the plan indicates that further
actions are planned.  These include (1) forming a panel of experts to
review applications to become a center of excellence, (2)
recommending topical areas for center-of-excellence designation, and
(3) developing general operating principles and means to evaluate the
operating centers of excellence.  The training plan indicates that
four additional centers of excellence will be established by the end
of fiscal year 2000. 

However, the training plan does not articulate a policy on, or
mandate the use of, the centers within the Department.\25 Absent that
mandate, we found that one of the centers has separately delivered
training courses on subjects that already existed within the
Department.  For example, during fiscal year 1998, the National
Environmental Training Office delivered a 3-day course on
Environmental Laws and Regulations.  We determined that a similar
course of comparable duration already existed elsewhere within DOE. 
For example, contractors at both DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Office
and Rocky Flats Field Office offer a 3-day course on Environmental
Laws and Regulations.  In commenting on this matter, the director of
the training office said that DOE and DOE/contractor training
organizations have historically worked independently.  Therefore, it
will take some time for these very same organizations to work more
closely together.  The director added that the training office,
nevertheless, has had tremendous success during its first year in
forming partnerships with various DOE locations to eliminate
duplicate training.  Furthermore, the training office's newer courses
are not being duplicated and in fact are being requested throughout
DOE. 


--------------------
\25 In a January 30, 1998, memorandum, DOE's Office of Environmental
Management advised its employees seeking training related to
environmental management to look first to the courses provided by the
National Environmental Training Office. 


   THE STEPS NECESSARY TO IMPROVE
   CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE TRAINING
   PERFORMANCE HAVE NOT BEEN
   IDENTIFIED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

According to DOE data, the Department spent about $322.2 million on
training contractor employees during fiscal year 1997.  Despite this
large investment in its contractors and the documented problems in
contractor training identified in DOE's 1995 review of training, the
Department's draft training plan does not identify the steps
necessary to improve contractors' training performance or reduce
costs.  Instead, according to DOE training officials, the Department
will be working with its contractors to improve contractor training
through a subsequent installment of the plan.  However, we found that
DOE has not (1) established a departmental order on developing
contractor training programs and budgets; (2) incorporated a standard
set of performance measures into its performance-based contracts
regarding contractors' training efficiency and effectiveness; and (3)
clarified the roles and responsibilities of DOE offices for the
oversight of contractor training departmentwide.  DOE training
officials told us they were aware that these issues must be resolved
and intend to address them in a subsequent installment of the
training plan.  However, a date for the subsequent installment to the
training plan has not yet been established. 

While DOE's order on federal employee training contains in-depth
information on the administration of federal training, we found that
its order on contractors' human resource management provides
considerably less detail on contractor employee training.  This
latter order only requires that each contractor submit an employee
substance abuse and employee assistance program for approval by the
appropriate DOE contracting officer.  It does not, however, discuss
the need for or the contents of an employee training program.  The
order also does not provide any guidance on developing a contractor's
annual training budget.  Because of these omissions, DOE training
officials told us the Department intends to issue a new order
pertaining to contractor employee training sometime in the future.  A
DOE timetable for the issuance of that new order has not been
established. 

We also found that DOE has not developed a standard set of
performance measures to promote cost reductions in contractor
training departmentwide.  In May 1998, we reported that, for four
contractors we reviewed, the applicable DOE field locations used
various measures during fiscal year 1997 to evaluate contractors'
training performance.\26 For example, at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, DOE included a performance measure in the contract that
required the contractor to develop a plan to consolidate all training
records into an integrated database.  In addition, at the Rocky Flats
Field Office, DOE included a performance measure in the contract that
required the contractor to fulfill 95 percent of the special requests
for training when more than 3-days' notice had been given.  Although
such measures could improve record keeping and course scheduling,
they would not, for the most part, help eliminate unnecessary costs
for contractor training or improve training effectiveness. 

In on our review of contractor training, we identified three
performance measures that were not being used DOE-wide that could
reduce contractor training costs.  Specifically, we noted that DOE
has not instituted a standard performance measure to take the
following actions: 

  -- Consolidate training operations where multiple DOE contractors
     or multiple contractor training organizations are present.  Such
     consolidation can substantially reduce costs by eliminating
     redundant training organizations and redundant training courses. 
     For example, at one contractor location contacted, the
     contractor consolidated training that had previously been
     provided by four separate organizations and reported a cost
     savings of about $3.3 million the following year. 

  -- Subcontract (i.e., outsource) training courses to qualified
     vendors.  Outsourcing can reduce the cost for providing
     contractor training.  For example, the contractor at one
     location contacted outsourced about 65 percent of its training
     to a qualified vendor at an estimated savings of more than $0.6
     million over a 2-year period. 

  -- Use training course materials from other DOE locations rather
     than develop courses independently.  One contractor, for
     example, advised us it has no policy or procedures requiring it
     to consider using materials from other DOE locations before
     deciding to develop a new training course.  We noted that this
     contractor, in fiscal year 1997, spent over $3.9 million
     independently developing contractor training courses at its
     site. 

Only one of the four contractors we reviewed had performance measures
aimed at reducing training costs.\27

We further found that the roles and responsibilities for overseeing
contractor training performance departmentwide have not been
adequately addressed.  According to DOE training officials we
contacted, four DOE headquarters offices have some interface with
contractors departmentwide--the Office of Human Resources Management,
the Office of Contract and Resource Management, the Office of Worker
and Community Transition, and the Office of Field Management.  None
of these offices, however, has responsibility for overseeing
contractor training performance.  According to an official with the
Office of Human Resources Management, this office collects contractor
training cost data but has limited contact with contractor training
personnel.  According to an official with the Office of Contract and
Resource Management, this office only reviews contractor employees'
compensation, pensions, and benefits.  According to an official with
the Office of Worker and Community Transition, this office is
primarily concerned with contractors' employee displacement and
downsizing programs.  According to an official with the Office of
Field Management, this office may deliver training on a particular
subject to both federal and contractor employees in the field.  None
of these DOE offices indicated, however, that they review the
contractor training courses offered or the contractor training
budgets. 

DOE training officials agreed that the steps outlined above could
improve contractor training.  These officials also told us that the
training plan will be revised to be applicable to DOE's contractor
workforce.  In addition, specific performance objectives and measures
will be included in the plan.  Furthermore, the DOE order on
contractor employee training will be revised to include a chapter
that will assign responsibility and provide guidance for developing,
monitoring, and evaluating training for departmental contractors. 


--------------------
\26 Department of Energy:  DOE Contractor Employee Training,
(GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998).  The four contractors were selected
because their annual expenditures for training have been among the
highest across the DOE complex and, collectively, they accounted for
48 percent of DOE's contractor training expenditures in fiscal year
1997. 

\27 The contract for DOE/Richland Operations Office contained
performance measures to (1) develop a plan to eliminate redundant
training functions, (2) evaluate the possibility of consolidating all
training under one organization, and (3) eliminate redundant training
courses. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

DOE's new training plan represents the Department's vision of the
improvements needed in federal employee training for fiscal years
1999 through 2001.  However, as currently drafted, the plan contains
shortcomings.  First, it does not provide a realistic estimate of the
overall costs and overall savings associated with its new training
plan.  According to DOE training officials, such an estimate is
necessary to obtain the support needed from senior DOE management and
the funding needed from the Congress.  Second, the plan does not
explain how DOE's decentralized training resources will be committed
to accomplish the plan.  At present, few DOE offices have actively
participated in developing the performance expectations contained in
the plan.  Whether DOE offices that have not been actively involved
in the plan will financially support it, when completed, remains to
be seen.  Third, the plan does not present a policy regarding the use
of the Department's centers of excellence.  The centers are a central
feature of the training plan.  By operating the centers, DOE intends
to eliminate the duplication of training within the Department. 
However, the plan does not present a policy on the use of the centers
or mandate that the centers be the sole source for training within
the Department on a topical area.  Finally, even though DOE spent
about 85 percent of its training budget for fiscal year 1997 on
training contractor employees, DOE's training plan does not address
what steps should be taken to improve contractor employee training. 
Because of these shortcomings, the plan will not provide DOE with a
reliable roadmap for the future, as intended.  DOE officials told us
they plan to correct these shortcomings, but it is not clear exactly
how they will do this. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:7

To improve DOE's new training plan, we recommend that the Secretary
of Energy require that the plan include

  -- a realistic estimate of the overall costs to implement the plan
     and the overall savings to be achieved;

  -- an explanation of how DOE's decentralized training resources
     will be committed to finance the plan;

  -- a policy regarding the use of the Department's centers of
     excellence; and

  -- an identification of the steps necessary to improve contractor
     training performance.  At a minimum, those steps should include
     (1) establishing departmental guidance on the development,
     monitoring, and evaluation of contractor training programs and
     budgets, (2) incorporating a standard set of performance
     measures regarding training into its performance-based
     contracts, and (3) clarifying the roles and responsibilities for
     the oversight of contractor training performance departmentwide. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:8

DOE concurred with the overall direction and intent of these
recommendations.  Among other things, DOE said that , as part of the
plan, it will provide estimates of costs and savings in implementing
the training plan.  In addition, DOE said it will develop a policy on
the use of the centers of excellence.  Finally, DOE will add a new
chapter to an existing DOE order to clarify DOE's oversight roles and
responsibilities for contractor training and provide
performance-based contractor training objectives and measures to be
incorporated into major contracts as they are renewed and offered for
competitive bidding. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
============================================================ Chapter 3



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II


   RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND
   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

(Ms.) Gary L.  Jones, Associate Director
William F.  Fenzel, Assistant Director
Robert J.  Baney, Evaluator-in-Charge
William M.  Seay, Team Member


*** End of document. ***