Human Capital: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Training at
Selected Agencies (Testimony, 05/18/2000, GAO/T-GGD-00-131).

During the 1990s, many federal agencies cut back on hiring new staff to
reduce the number of employees on the payroll and to meet downsizing
goals. As a result, these agencies also reduced the influx of new people
with new knowledge and skills that agencies needed to help build and
sustain excellence. Moreover, anecdotal evidence on overall federal
spending on training indicates that, in trying to save on
workforce-related costs, agencies cut back on training investments
needed if their smaller workforces were to make up for institutional
losses in knowledge and skills. Agencies may need to take a fresh look
at their training needs today. This report provides information on (1)
how high-performing organizations approach the design and implementation
of their training and development programs and (2) the design,
implementation, and evaluation of training and development programs at
four federal agencies--the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the
Health Care Financing Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and the State Department.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-00-131
     TITLE:  Human Capital: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of
	     Training at Selected Agencies
      DATE:  05/18/2000
   SUBJECT:  Performance measures
	     Training utilization
	     Human resources training
	     Agency missions
IDENTIFIER:  Dept. of State Diplomatic Security Construction Program

******************************************************************
** 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.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                         **
******************************************************************
GAO/T-GGD-00-131

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the
District of Columbia Committee on Governmental
Affairs
U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m., EDT
on Thursday
May 18, 2000
GAO/T-GGD-00-131

HUMAN CAPITAL
Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of

Training at Selected Agencies

Statement of Michael Brostek, Associate Director
Federal Management and Workforce Issues
General Government Division

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO's Fraud Hotline use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

 (410506)

Statement
Human Capital:  Design, Implementation, and
Evaluation of Training Programs at Selected
Agencies
Page 10                          GAO/T-GGD-00-131
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

     I am pleased to be here today to discuss how
training programs have been designed, implemented,
and evaluated at four federal agencies.  As
social, economic, and technological changes
continue to affect the way in which the government
does business, agencies will need to place special
emphasis on how they develop their employees-or
human capital-in order to maximize their ability
to successfully perform their missions and achieve
their strategic goals.  Training programs play a
key role in how agencies develop their human
capital and improve performance.  Agencies must
design and implement these programs to address any
identified gaps in the knowledge and skills that
agencies believe are needed to achieve their
missions and goals.  Agencies must also evaluate
their training programs to ensure that they are
indeed increasing workforce knowledge and skills
and improving individual and agency performance.

During the 1990s, many federal agencies cut back
on hiring new staff in order to reduce the number
of employees and meet downsizing goals.  As a
result, these agencies also reduced the influx of
new people with new knowledge and skills that
agencies needed to help build and sustain
excellence.  Moreover, anecdotal evidence
regarding overall federal expenditures on training
indicates that, in trying to save on workforce-
related costs, agencies cut back on the training
investments needed if their smaller workforces
were to make up for institutional losses in
knowledge and skills.  Agencies may need to take a
fresh look at their training resource needs.  If
additional resources are indeed needed and cannot
be secured through the appropriations process,
agencies may need to explore budget-neutral
options, such as reprogramming resources from
other operations accounts, for providing adequate
training for their employees.

As part of your Subcommittee's efforts to improve
federal agencies' human capital management, you
requested that we provide information on
(1) how high-performing organizations approach the
design and implementation of their training and
development programs and (2) the design,
implementation, and evaluation of training and
development programs at four federal agencies-the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and
the Department of State (State).

My statement makes four main points:

ï¿½    First, high-performing organizations we
contacted consistently approached the design and
implementation of their training and development
programs by (1) identifying the knowledge, skills,
abilities, and behaviors employees need to support
organizational missions and goals, and measuring
the extent to which employees actually possess
those competencies; (2) designing and implementing
training programs to meet any identified gaps in
those needs; and (3) evaluating the extent to
which training programs actually increase
employees' individual competencies and performance
levels as well as overall organizational
performance.

ï¿½    Second, the four agencies we reviewed
recognized the importance of identifying the
knowledge and skills needed by their employees to
support the agencies' missions and strategic
goals.  The agencies told us that they were
developing a comprehensive approach for
identifying mission critical competencies and
measuring the extent to which all of their
employees had these competencies.  However, each
agency's progress in this effort varied.  The
agencies used or planned to use this information
to design (or update) their training programs in
order to address any gaps between needed and
existing knowledge and skills.

ï¿½    Third, the four agencies all had training
curricula for developing employee skills in
selected occupations; required or recommended that
employees complete training on specific topics or
meet a minimum number of training hours; and made
training slots available each year on the basis of
estimated needs, priorities, and available
resources.   The agencies generally gave higher
priority to entry-level employees because of
limited resources (in terms of training funds as
well as coverage of employees' work duties while
they were attending training).

ï¿½    Finally, the four agencies each recognized
the importance of measuring the extent to which
their training programs contributed to increased
employee skills and improved support of agency
missions and strategic goals.   However, the
agencies generally relied on standard end-of-
course evaluations to collect information on
participant satisfaction rather than increased
knowledge and skills.  Most were still developing
more comprehensive evaluation techniques to
determine the extent to which training was
actually increasing employees' knowledge, skills,
and job performance.

My statement today is based on our interviews with
officials from the four agencies and our review of
relevant training documents provided by those
agencies.  As agreed with the Subcommittee staff,
the four agencies included in this review
represent a subset of the agencies being directly
contacted by the Subcommittee regarding federal
training practices.  Their training policies and
practices may not be typical and are not
generalizable to all federal agencies.  We also
reviewed information from our previous work on
training and development programs and human
capital management in high-performing public and
private sector organizations.  We did not collect
quantitative data related to these training
programs, since the Subcommittee collected this
data directly from these and other agencies.  We
performed our review in Washington, D.C., between
December 1999 and April 2000, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Background
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is
responsible for making all payments, including
payroll and contracts, and for maintaining the
core finance and accounting records for the
Department of Defense (DOD).  DFAS is also
responsible for the consolidation,
standardization, upgrading, and integration of
DOD's central finance and accounting operations,
procedures, and systems.  DFAS is headquartered in
Arlington, VA, and also has 5 centers and 20
operating locations that employed approximately
18,000 people as of January 2000.

The Health Care Financing Administration is an
agency within the Department of Health and Human
Services responsible for administering much of the
federal government's multibillion-dollar
investment in health care-primarily the Medicare
and Medicaid programs.  As of January 2000, HCFA
had about 4,500 employees, approximately 65
percent of whom were located in HCFA's central
office in Baltimore, MD, and the remainder in the
agency's 10 regional offices.  In addition to its
workforce, HCFA oversees Medicare claims
administration contractors.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service is an
agency of the Department of Justice responsible
for both administering immigration-related
services and enforcing immigration laws and
regulations.  INS is headquartered in Washington,
D.C., and administers its functions through a
network of 3 regional offices, 33 district
offices, and 21 Border Patrol sectors throughout
the United States.  As of January 2000, INS had
about 31,500 employees and was working to hire at
least 1,000 new border patrol agents each year
through 2001.  INS trains its border patrol agents
at the Border Patrol Academy in Glynco, GA, and at
a temporary training facility in Charleston, SC.

The Department of State is the principal agency
for advancing and protecting U.S. interests
overseas.  State maintains a worldwide network of
operations at over 250 overseas locations to
support its mission and those of about 35 other
U.S. agencies that operate overseas.  As of
January 2000, State had about 31,000 employees.
State's Foreign Service Institute is the federal
government's primary training institution for
officers and support personnel of the foreign
affairs community.  In addition to State, the
Institute provides training for employees from
more than 40 other government agencies.  State's
Diplomatic Security Training Center also provides
specialized training for diplomatic security
agents to supplement training they receive from
the Institute.

Training and Development Programs in High-
Performing Organizations
High-performing organizations we contacted
recognize the need to invest in their human
capital to achieve their missions and strategic
goals.  One fundamental form of that investment
consists of providing continuous training and
development opportunities that support personal
development as well as organizational results.
Based upon our previous human capital work, we
found that, while their actual programs, policies,
and practices varied, high-performing
organizations generally follow certain key steps
in developing training programs they believe to be
effective.1  Specifically, as shown in the
following figure, these organizations

ï¿½    identify the competencies-commonly defined as
knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors-needed
to achieve organizational missions and goals, and
measure the extent to which their employees
possess these competencies,
ï¿½    implement training and development programs
to address any identified competency gaps, and
ï¿½    evaluate the extent to which their programs
actually increase employees' individual
competencies and performance levels as well as the
organization's overall performance.

We examined the training programs of the four
agencies included in this review in light of these
key steps to developing effective training
programs.

Figure 1: Key Steps in Developing Training
Programs

Identifying and Measuring the Knowledge and Skills
Needed to Support Missions and Goals
The four agencies included in our review
recognized that identifying and measuring the
knowledge and skills needed by their employees to
support missions and goals were important steps in
developing their training programs.  The degree to
which the agencies had actually completed these
steps for all of their employees varied.  The
agency officials described several tools that they
were developing or using to identify and measure
their employees' knowledge and skills, including
workforce planning models, needs assessments,
knowledge and skills inventories, and individual
development plans (IDP). Officials from each of
the agencies told us that they planned to work
with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or
outside contractors to assess the reliability and
validity of these tools.

Federal agencies may encounter certain challenges
in their efforts to identify and measure the
knowledge and skills that their employees must
possess to support missions and goals.  For
example, the four agencies in our review employed
individuals across diverse occupations, some of
which required knowledge and skills that may be
more easily measured than others.  For example,
border patrol agents could be tested for certain
knowledge and skills, such as their foreign
language proficiency, physical fitness, and
marksmanship, whereas some of the knowledge and
skills needed to be an effective contract
administrator might not be so readily determined.
Another challenge for agencies may be finding the
staff and resources needed to identify what
knowledge and skills are needed for high
performance and to measure in a reliable, valid,
and comprehensive manner the extent to which
employees have those competencies.

DFAS
As noted in the agency's current career
development and training plan, in 1996 GAO as well
as the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector
General found that DFAS lacked a comprehensive
strategy or program for training its employees to
support the financial and accounting needs of DOD.
As a result, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense provided DFAS with additional training
funds and directed that the agency develop and
implement a centralized training program to
respond to the developmental needs of its
employees.  DFAS officials told us that the agency
now uses its strategic plan, human resources
directors' performance contracts, and an annual
training needs assessment to identify the
knowledge and skills that employees must possess
to support the agency's mission and goals.
Moreover, the officials said that DFAS was
piloting a new process to identify which knowledge
and skills gaps could be addressed through
training.  This pilot involved assessing training
needs 5 years into the future; systematically
collecting managers' and supervisors' views on
training needs using interviews, focus groups, and
surveys; and requiring all employees to complete
IDPs.   To this end, DFAS developed detailed
career development plans for all its occupations
that (1) outline the knowledge and skills
employees must possess to support the agency's
mission and goals, and (2) guide employees as they
identify and prioritize their own training and
developmental needs.

HCFA
Last year, we testified that HCFA's staff had not
been sufficiently trained to effectively support
its missions and goals to provide services to
Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as to
promote the fiscal integrity of those programs.2
The agency officials told us that HCFA developed a
learning plan for its employees that established
training needs and priorities on the basis of
input collected from managers and focus groups
from across the agency.  Moreover, HCFA officials
stated that the agency was developing a workforce
planning process that would identify the knowledge
and skills employees must possess to support
strategic staffing and training and development
that would be aligned with the agency's mission
and goals.  The officials said that the agency was
using guidance from the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Office of Management and
Budget, and our human capital self-assessment
checklist, to develop a workforce planning process
consisting of four phases: analyzing the current
and future workload, developing current and future
competency frameworks, identifying existing
workforce competencies, and conducting an analysis
of any gaps between current and future
requirements and the existing workforce.3

INS
Agency officials told us that, in an attempt to
ensure that employees have the knowledge and
skills needed to administer immigration-related
services and enforce immigration laws and
regulations, INS made an effort to identify and
measure the knowledge and skills that border
patrol agents, investigators, and immigration
specialists must possess to execute the tasks INS
considers necessary for mission accomplishment.
According to the officials, every 5 years, INS'
research and evaluation unit reviewed the
knowledge and skills that these employees must
possess and determined whether the agency was
providing the training and development
opportunities needed to ensure that those core
skills were developed.  The agency's most recent
review was completed in 1998.  The officials said
that the agency primarily relied upon post-
training tests to determine the extent to which
employees actually possessed the identified core
skills.  The officials also said that they did not
make similar efforts to identify and measure the
knowledge and skills needed for headquarters,
administrative, and other support staff, because
the agency did not have the staff or resources to
do so.

State
Agency officials told us that, to identify and
measure the knowledge and skills State's foreign
service officers and diplomatic security agents
must possess to support the agency's mission of
advancing and promoting U.S. interests overseas,
the agency completed (1) a job analysis of its
foreign service generalist corps in 1998 to
identify the tasks and activities performed by
those employees as well as the human attributes
and foreign language proficiency required for high
performance, and (2) a formal baseline needs
assessment for its diplomatic security agents in
the mid-1980s, which has been informally updated
in the intervening years.  The agency officials
also said that State had adopted OPM's leadership
competencies for senior executives.  State now
measures employees' existing knowledge and skills
by testing periodically for language proficiency,
requiring certain employees to pass tests to
fulfill agency certification requirements, and
providing leaders access to 360-degree self-
assessment instruments that allowed them to
identify areas where they may need further
development.  New diplomatic security agents are
required to achieve certain baseline test scores
at the completion of their training programs.
State is also developing competency-based models
for several occupations-including passport agents,
information technology support staff, and human
resource management occupations-that will identify
the competencies needed for high performance,
measurement methods for determining the extent to
which staff have these competencies, and suggested
training courses and developmental activities.

Implementing Training Programs That Develop
Employees' Knowledge and Skills
The four agencies we reviewed had training
curricula for developing employee knowledge and
skills in selected occupations, and the agencies
generally required that employees complete
training on specific topics (and/or complete a
specified minimum number of training hours)
included in those curricula.  The agencies
generally made training slots available each year
on the basis of estimated needs, priorities, and
available resources.  All of the agencies'
training budgets were funded at least in part from
the central agency budget, and all but DFAS also
funded a portion of their training programs by
offering courses on a fee-for-service basis (i.e.,
explicitly charging organizational units or other
agencies an established fee for each unit of
training provided to their employees).

Officials of the four agencies in our review told
us that their agencies had encountered certain
challenges to implementing training programs that
strategically developed the knowledge and skills
of all of their employees.  For example, agency
officials indicated that limited training
resources often necessitated prioritizing the
training for new employees (who may need training
to understand an agency's unique missions, goals,
and job performance expectations) over training
for more senior employees.  Moreover, some of the
officials also told us that current staffing
levels prevented them from offering employees more
training opportunities because the agencies
believed that their staffing levels did not allow
for proper coverage of the employees' mission-
related job responsibilities while they were
attending training.

DFAS
DFAS officials told us that the agency had
multiple training programs with curricula that
were specifically focused on increasing the skills
of particular groups of employees.  For example,
the agency's largest program focused on financial
management and financial systems skills.  The
agency also had a career development curriculum
focused on professional and executive development
and managerial skills.  The agency also had a goal
(but not a requirement) that each employee
complete 40 hours of training each fiscal year.4
DFAS asked first-line supervisors to determine
what their employees' training needs were, and
this information was incorporated into the
development of the agency's training needs
assessment as well as decisions on how many
training slots should be funded each year.  DFAS
training was centrally funded out of its
operations and maintenance and defense working
capital funds appropriations.

HCFA
HCFA officials told us that the agency had
identified curricula that included basic skills,
desktop computer skills, program policy and
operations, management development, and
contract/grants certification.  However, according
to the officials, much of this core knowledge and
many of these skills were learned by employees
before they obtained employment at HCFA and were
maintained through such continuing education
efforts as attending conferences, reading
professional literature, and belonging to
professional associations. Thus, training
requirements varied by occupation.  For example,
systems administrators and contract/grants
officers had specific training requirements, and
new managers were required to receive 40 hours of
training upon being promoted.  The agency
estimated its training budget needs on the basis
of prior years' needs and projected needs.  The
agency funded central training from its
administrative budget, and also provided agency
units with discretionary funds that allowed them
the flexibility to purchase external training or
additional internal training slots on a fee-for-
service basis.

INS
INS officials told us that the agency had a
curriculum for its border patrol and other law
enforcement employees, but not for the agency's
nonspecialist employees.  Specifically, new border
patrol agents were sent to the Border Patrol
Academy for a required 19-week basic training
program, where employees received training in six
subjects-physical training, firearms, driving,
operations, law, and Spanish.  The agency required
managers and supervisors to complete basic
management training classes, and also developed
advanced training courses for experienced
(journeyman) special agents.  According to INS
officials, the agency ensured that it had
sufficient slots for new-hire training by
developing modular costs for budgeting that
included the cost of recruiting, hiring, and
training each new hire.  The officials told us
that the agency could not provide the same
assurance of sufficient slots for journeyman
agents; however, the agency was considering making
greater use of distance learning where appropriate
or feasible (firearms training, for example, could
not be offered through distance learning) to
ensure that employees received the training they
need while also being able to continue their on-
the-job assignments-a concern of agency
supervisors.5  INS' fixed training costs (which
represented about 25 percent of the training
budget) were funded from the agency's central
budget, while the remaining variable costs were
funded by providing courses to INS units and
divisions on a fee-for-service basis.

State
State officials told us that the agency had an
extensive training curriculum, which included
profession-specific areas of study (e.g.,
acquisitions) and training on foreign languages,
information technology, overseas briefings,
leadership and management, and diplomatic
security.  The agency also required certain
employees to complete specific training courses.
For example, new diplomatic security agents
received approximately 24 weeks of training in
such areas as firearms, criminal investigations,
and the law.  According to the officials, the
agency made initial or entry level training a
higher priority than advanced training for foreign
service and diplomatic security agents, because of
a concern that extensive training requirements
could cause experienced employees to be called in
from their field assignments and thus endanger the
agency's ability to accomplish its mission.  The
officials told us that the agency determined the
number of training slots to be offered by looking
at hiring plans, past enrollments, assignment
projections, and available resources.  Each
organization within the agency determined its own
training budget, and the agency's primary training
unit was funded by a direct budget allocation and
fees from agency units and other agencies that
sent employees to State training classes.

Evaluating Training Programs
The four agencies we reviewed each recognized the
importance of measuring the extent to which its
training programs contributed to increased
employee knowledge and skills and improved mission
accomplishment; however, the agencies' primary
means of evaluation generally consisted of using
end-of-course evaluations to collect information
on participant satisfaction for specific training
courses.  On a more positive note, the agencies
either had or were developing more comprehensive
evaluation techniques to determine the extent to
which (1) training courses taught employees new
knowledge and skills; (2) these knowledge and
skills were actually being applied on the job; and
(3) training courses had any long-term impact on
overall agency performance.  The agencies also
told us that they used central databases to track
the training that their employees had completed.

The four agencies included in our review have
encountered several challenges to evaluating their
training and development programs, which may be
attributed in part to the general difficulty
associated with measuring the impact of training
on individual and organizational performance for
any organization.  Measurement difficulties aside,
agencies may also lack the staff and resources
needed to complete in-depth evaluations.
Moreover, even in those instances where an agency
might have staff and resources to complete
training evaluations, low participation on the
part of employees and managers in surveys and
focus groups may limit an agency's access to the
data needed to complete valid, useful evaluations.

DFAS
DFAS officials told us that they evaluated their
training programs by asking participants to
complete end-of-course evaluations.  The agency
was also developing an evaluation model that would
allow it to determine more comprehensively the
effectiveness of its various training programs.
The officials described this model as including
the means to collect not only information on
participant satisfaction with training courses,
but also information on the extent to which
participants had acquired specific knowledge and
skills, improved their performance on the job, and
contributed to improved business results.  The
officials stated that the agency had contracted
with OPM to help it develop valid measurement
instruments for its financial management training
efforts in order to pilot its new training
evaluation model.  The officials also stated that
the agency used a central database to track the
specific training completed by employees.

HCFA
HCFA officials stated that the agency generally
used end-of-course evaluations to determine the
extent to which their training courses improve
individual and organizational performance and
mission accomplishment.  Additionally, the
officials stated that the agency developed an
annual learning plan process that included a
qualitative review of the effectiveness of
existing training classes and career development
programs.  However, the officials also stated that
the agency recognized the need for improving its
evaluation of on-the-job and long-term impacts of
its training courses on employee and
organizational performance.  As a result, the
officials stated that they were working with a
contractor to develop additional tools and
guidance for evaluating training courses and
career development programs.  For example, the
officials told us that the agency was purchasing a
software application that would provide an
automated means for conducting customized end-of-
course and follow-up evaluations that addressed
the value of training and subsequent performance
improvements.   The officials also told us that
the agency had a database to track all employee
training that was at least 1 day in length, and
that those units that had established a training
requirement also tracked the extent to which their
employees had completed those requirements.

INS
INS officials told us that their agency evaluated
and validated their training and development
programs for border patrol agents, investigators,
and immigration specialists at several levels.
First, the officials stated that INS administered
end-of-course evaluations to training participants
that allowed them to assess participants' views on
the training facilities, materials, and
instructors.   They also said that INS
administered tests and practical exercises as part
of its training programs that allowed the agency
to make general assessments as to the
participants' increase in knowledge or skills as a
result of the training.  For example, border
patrol agents were tested on their physical
fitness, marksmanship, foreign language abilities,
and reaction times.  Finally, the agency officials
stated that INS used operations data and feedback
collected through periodic surveys and focus
groups to determine the effectiveness of training
programs in preparing participants to perform
specific tasks. While INS evaluated the training
and development of its border patrol agents,
investigators, and immigration specialists, the
officials stated that the agency did not
comprehensively evaluate the training and
development that headquarters, administrative, and
other support staff receive due to staff and
resources limitations.  INS told us that they used
a database to track the specific training
completed by its employees.

State
State officials told us that the agency regularly
sought input and feedback from its various units
as well as from other agencies that used its
training services to determine whether the courses
met their training needs and were believed to have
improved individual and organizational
performance.  The officials stated that the agency
asked its employees to complete end-of-course
evaluations not only for State training, but also
for external training they attended.  The
officials also told us that State's Inspector
General was responsible for inspecting and
auditing training programs as part of their
overall mission.  Diplomatic security officials
said that they had previously completed long-term
course evaluations, but because of downsizing
within their training operations, this capability
was now limited.  To improve the extent to which
State can evaluate on-the-job and long-term
individual and organizational benefits of training
courses on mission accomplishment, the agency was
developing methods to obtain post-training
assessment data from both participants and their
supervisors.  The officials indicated that State
was also working on explicitly linking training to
the agency's mission and strategic goals.  The
agency used a registration and enrollment database
to track internal and external training-a similar,
but separate database was used to track diplomatic
security agents' training and certifications.

Conclusions
As part of adopting more strategic and performance-
based management practices, agencies must be
prepared to focus on how best to invest in their
people, or human capital, to achieve high
performance of their missions and strategic goals.
To achieve this high performance, agencies may
need to place particular emphasis on the training
and development of their employees to ensure that
they have the competencies-knowledge, skills,
abilities, and behaviors--needed to successfully
perform and contribute to agencies' mission-
critical activities.  To design and implement
effective training programs, agencies must (1)
identify the competencies needed to achieve their
specific mission and goals and measure the extent
to which their employees exhibit those
competencies; (2) identify training and
development needs to be addressed; and once those
training opportunities are in place; (3) evaluate
the extent to which their programs are actually
increasing employees' individual competencies and
individual and overall organization performance
levels.

Our review of the training programs of DFAS, HCFA,
INS, and the State Department suggests that
agencies recognize the importance of, and are in
the early stages of seeking to improve, their
training and development programs using these
basic steps.  However, these agencies also face a
number of challenges that could make the execution
and completion of these steps difficult, including
a reported lack of staff and resources needed to
apply the steps across all groups of employees and
with sufficient rigor.  If agencies determine that
additional training resources are needed and they
are unable to obtain these resources through the
appropriations process, they may need to consider
budget neutral options, such as reprogramming
resources from other operations accounts, for
providing adequate training for all of their
employees.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my prepared statement.  At this time, I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgements
For further information regarding this testimony,
please contact Michael Brostek, Associate
Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues,
at (202) 512-8676.  Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included
Charlesetta Bailey, Jennifer Cruise, and Thomas
Fox.

_______________________________
1 For examples of our previous work noting the
human capital management practices of high-
performing organizations, see Human Capital:
Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century (GAO/T-
GGD-00-77, Mar. 9, 2000), Human Capital:  Key
Principles From Nine Private Sector Organizations
(GAO/GGD-00-28, Jan. 31, 2000), Human Capital:  A
Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency
Leaders-Discussion Draft (GAO/GGD-99-179, Sept.
1999), and Transforming the Civil Service:
Building the Workforce of the Future-Results of a
GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 20,
1995).
2HCFA Management:  Agency Faces Multiple
Challenges in Managing Its Transition to the 21st
Century (GAO/T-HEHS-99-58, Feb. 11, 1999).
3GAO/GGD-99-179.
4 In 1998, we recommended that DFAS adopt minimum
training requirements, particularly for financial
management employees, because such requirements
would help ensure that as many employees as
possible were provided the up-to-date, technical
training needed to carry out their
responsibilities.  See Financial Management:
Training of DOD Financial Managers Could Be
Enhanced (GAO/AIMD-98-126, June 24, 1998).
5 In 1998, INS contracted out for an assessment of
the advanced training needs of its journey-level
employees, including border patrol agents and
immigration inspectors.  The assessment included a
survey of journeyman-level employees and their
supervisors; however, the response rates were
fairly low for border patrol agents and
immigration inspectors, at 23 percent and 32
percent, respectively. The assessment showed that
the agency's competency models for both
occupations were valid, the percentage of
employees who received training varied greatly by
job classification, and significant performance
gaps existed for several competencies and tasks.
Both supervisors and journeyman-level employees
selected training as the best solution for
eliminating most of the performance gaps.
*** End of document ***