Agencies Lack Complete and Reliable Data on the Cost of External Executive Training and Are Likely Underreporting Costs

		Agencies Reported Spending Millions of Dollars and Most Used Multiple External Providers from Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012

The 26 CHCO Council agencies responding to our questionnaire reported  that, from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, they spent almost $57 million  (in constant 2012 dollars) for about 30,000 participants to attend  executive training courses offered by external providers. OPM requires agencies to maintain records of training plans,  expenditures, and activities, and to submit the recorded data to OPM. For example, one agency reported that it did  not include costs for course materials. OPM officials agreed that agencies have challenges collecting and  reporting costs for executive training through the EHRI database, and as  a result, executive training cost data in EHRI is probably lower than actual  agency expenditures. However, OPM has not established interim milestones for the completion  of these planned meetings with agencies to address training data  deficiencies, nor has OPM set timeframes for agencies to have a plan in  place for improving the completeness and reliability of agency data on  executive training costs. One leading transformation practice is to  establish milestones and timeframes to demonstrate progress towards  achieving goals. Agencies are required by statute and OPM implementing regulations to  evaluate how well training programs contribute to mission  accomplishment and meet organizational performance goals. OPM acknowledged that some agencies  struggle with evaluating training programs. However, OPM is not sharing lessons learned from agencies that  reported having assessed the impact of executive training on agency  missions. However, eight agencies that responded to our  questionnaire (and that are also members of the CHCO Council) reported  that they have conducted these evaluations and may have lessons  learned from which other agencies could benefit. Further, 20 of 26 agency CHCOs said they found opportunities for  achieving efficiencies government-wide. For instance, some CHCOs said  agencies can increase interagency cooperation on executive training by  sharing space in training seminars with other agencies, and allowing  admission of SES candidates from other federal agencies into training  programs such as SESCDPs. CHCOs also said that  OPM could assist agencies in locating executive training programs open  to other agencies and departments, and provide a central source for  listing executive development opportunities throughout the federal  government. Participation facilitates brainstorming solutions to previously  identified issues faced by career SES and SES candidates. Moreover, by not establishing a timeframe for improving the  reliability of executive training cost data, OPM may be missing an  opportunity to better position itself to hold agencies accountable for  improving the data. OPM has not used interagency councils to share lessons  learned from agencies that have experience with assessing executive  training’s impact on agency missions. Although OPM has developed and  published guidance on evaluating training’s impact on agency mission  and goals, over half of the CHCO agencies are not conducting these  evaluations of executive training provided by external providers. Agency  CHCOs reported that more assistance from OPM is needed. By not assessing lessons learned and other  potential efficiencies identified by agencies, OPM may be missing an  opportunity to better position agencies to achieve these efficiencies in  executive training. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that agencies track and report comparable and reliable  cost data and perform evaluations that assess the impact of executive  training on agency performance or missions, we recommend that the  Director of OPM, in coordination with the CHCO Council, take the  following actions:
Establish interim milestones for meeting with agencies in order to  address training data deficiencies and to establish well-defined  timeframes for improving the reliability of the data in its EHRI  database. However, we believe that more steps can be taken. Specifically, this report (1) describes what is known about how  much Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO Council) agencies  have spent on executive training offered by external providers and  assesses the reliability of available cost data; (2) assesses how CHCO  Council agencies evaluate the effectiveness of the training; (3) compares  opportunities identified by agency CHCOs to achieve efficiencies in  executive training to leading training practices, and (4) provides views of  career Senior Executive Service (SES) and SES candidates from  selected agencies on the value of the training they received. We selected three agencies – the Department of Energy (Energy),  Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and Department of Veterans  Affairs (VA) – to obtain illustrative examples of how they approached  executive training in their respective agencies and collected data related  to costs; how they implemented and evaluated the results of their  executive training programs identified in the questionnaire; and how they  identified potential efficiencies and steps planned or already taken to  achieve them.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government annually spends millions of dollars on executive training programs administered by external training providers. GAO was asked to review the costs and value of this training. This review (1) describes what is known about how much CHCO Council agencies have spent on executive training offered by external providers and assesses the reliability of available cost data; (2) assesses how CHCO Council agencies evaluate the effectiveness of the training; (3) compares executive training efficiency opportunities identified by agency CHCOs to leading practices; and (4) provides views of career SES and SES candidates from selected agencies on the value of the training they received. GAO obtained information from CHCO Council agencies through a questionnaire, and selected three of 26 CHCO Council agencies--the Departments of Energy, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs--to provide illustrative examples. GAO based its selection, in part, on workforce size, number of career SES, and total training costs.

What GAO Found

Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) from 26 agencies reported that, from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, they spent almost $57 million (in constant 2012 dollars) on executive training provided by external providers. CHCOs reported using the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Executive Institute and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government most often. Agencies are required to maintain records of training plans, expenditures, activities, and (since 2006) to report training data to OPM. However, half of the CHCOs reported data to GAO that they deemed incomplete, or with limitations. For example, two agencies did not include travel related costs; one did not include costs for course materials; another did not include costs from all components. OPM officials agree that training cost data reported by agencies continues to be unreliable, and is probably lower than actual agency expenditures. OPM officials said they are meeting with agencies to address data deficiencies. However, OPM has not set interim milestones for meeting with agencies or established a timeframe to improve reporting. One leading practice is to establish such interim milestones and timeframes, in order to demonstrate progress towards achieving goals. By not establishing interim milestones and timeframes for improving the reliability of executive training cost data, OPM may be missing an opportunity to better position itself to hold agencies accountable for improving their data.
Most CHCOs reported evaluating participant reaction and changing their training programs based on participant input, but fewer reported assessing training impact on agency mission. Agencies are required by statute and OPM implementing regulations to evaluate how well training programs contribute to mission accomplishment and performance goals. OPM is not sharing lessons learned from agencies that have experience assessing executive training impact on agency mission. However, OPM acknowledged that some agencies struggle with these evaluations; in response, OPM has issued guidance on the subject. CHCOs cited time, costs, and difficulty as reasons for not conducting the required evaluations and reported the need for additional OPM assistance. Eight agencies reported conducting these evaluations and may have lessons learned from which other agencies could benefit. For example, VA has a process for assessing the impact of executive training on its mission that it has used to make better training investment decisions.
CHCOs identified opportunities for agencies and OPM to achieve efficiencies in executive training. CHCOs said agencies could (1) increase interagency cooperation by sharing training facilities and expanding eligibility to Senior Executive Service (SES) candidates from other agencies, and (2) implement or expand computer-based training. CHCOs also said OPM could, among other things, (1) help centralize training offerings by creating a centrally funded SES candidate development program, and (2) assist agencies in identifying programs open to other agencies and departments. By not assessing lessons learned and other efficiencies identified by agencies, OPM may be missing an opportunity to better position agencies to achieve these efficiencies in executive training.
Career SES and SES candidates generally said external executive training is useful and valuable, but suggested that it would be more cost-effective for the government to negotiate prices as a large-scale buyer, versus individual agencies purchasing training.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OPM (1) establish interim milestones for meeting with agencies to address training data deficiencies and establish time frames for improving the reliability of agency data, (2) share information and examples of how agencies have evaluated the impact of executive training on agency mission and goals, and (3) assess potential efficiencies identified by agencies for possible government-wide implementation. OPM concurred with the recommendations and has taken useful steps. GAO still believes that more effective activities can be taken.