These  practices include determining the best mix of decentralized and  centralized training, considering government-wide reforms when  identifying their training needs, and measuring employee satisfaction with  training, among other things. However, many CHCOs reported that they  are not implementing the leading practices that would allow them to make  more cost-effective training decisions, such as having an agency-wide  process for prioritizing training investments so that the most important  training needs are addressed first and comparing the merits of different  delivery mechanisms (e.g. OPM is piloting GEAR at five agencies—the Housing  and Urban Development, the DOE, the Coast Guard, OPM and VA.

			Have Criteria for Determining Whether to Design Training and Development Programs in- house or to Obtain These Services from a Contractor or Other External Source

Many of the CHCOs in our review reported having criteria for this  purpose. However, according to OPM officials, they consider the data to  be unreliable because they are incomplete. We believe that the current reliability of agency training investment data is  unknown because OPM officials have not internally assessed  improvements in the completeness of the data over the last 3 years or the  quality of the data in the six years that agencies have been required to  submit it. The TED group provides guidance and assistance to agencies in  evaluating training programs through three of its guides and in  workshops. OPM defines a business case as a method for projecting and  documenting the benefits to be gained as a result of investing resources  in a training intervention. TED officials agreed that they do not provide guidance or assistance to  agencies on this practice. According to  OPM officials, while HR University primarily serves the needs of the HR  community, OPM would support using the HR University model to  centralize training in other occupations or functional areas. Because many CHCOs do  not have the information that they need from component or subagency  leaders regarding the level of training investments and mechanisms for  setting priorities agency-wide, their agencies are duplicating some  internal training investments and missing opportunities to leverage  economies of scale and share the most effective training across their  agencies. Federal agencies and OPM also need reliable information on how much  agencies spend on training and for what purposes, in order to make  effective training investment decisions. However, at present many  agencies independently purchase or develop training for the same  government-wide mandated courses. Agency leaders and OPM recognize  that this has led to redundant and inefficient federal training investments. In line with statutory and regulatory provisions on maintenance and  reporting of training information, work with the CHCO Council to  improve the reliability of agency training investment information by: ensuring that agencies are familiar with and follow guidance  outlined in OPM’s Guide for the Collection and Management of  Training Information regarding which training events should be  documented as training and reported to OPM; developing policies to strengthen the utilization of Standard Form- 182 to document and report training costs; encouraging agencies through guidance and technical assistance,  to develop policies that require consistent reporting of training  data to their learning management systems; and encouraging each agency to assess its existing training  information system(s) and identify whether it is providing complete  and reliable data and, if not, to develop approaches to improve the  system(s), in order to do so. OPM, DOI, and VA provided technical comments, which we  incorporated into our report, as appropriate. DOE and DHS had no  comments. OPM partially concurred with our fifth recommendation that it should, in  collaboration with the CHCO and CLO Councils, identify the best existing  courses that fulfill government-wide training requirements, such as  mandatory Equal Employment Opportunity training, or training in common  federal occupations, such as basic training in financial management, and  offer them to all agencies through HR University or another appropriate  platform to reduce costly and duplicative federal training investments. Accordingly, this review assesses the  extent to which (1) chief human capital officers (CHCOs) of selected  federal agencies have established processes to set and prioritize training  investments that are aligned with leading practices; and (2) OPM’s  guidance and assistance for developing training investment strategies  align with these leading practices. In addition, based on  the responses to the questionnaire and workforce size, we selected four  agencies (the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Veterans  Affairs, Department of the Interior, and Department of Energy) from which  to obtain illustrative examples of how they implemented the training  investment practices identified in the questionnaire.
Why GAO Did This Study

OPM and agency CHCOs play an important role in ensuring that federal training dollars are invested effectively. GAO was asked to review the extent to which: (1) CHCOs of selected federal agencies have established processes to set and prioritize training investments that are aligned with leading practices; and (2) OPMs guidance and assistance for developing training investment strategies align with these leading practices. GAO obtained information from 27 CHCOs on their training investment practices through a questionnaire, and selected four agenciesthe Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior (DOI) and Veterans Affairs (VA)to provide illustrative examples. We compared both CHCO and OPM practices to leading practices, identified through past GAO and expert studies.

What GAO Found

Many Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs) reported that they are implementing several leading practices important to making strategic decisions about training delivery, such as determining the best mix of decentralized and centralized training and considering government-wide reform when planning training. However, many CHCOs reported they are not implementing some practices that support making more cost-effective training investment decisions, such as prioritizing training so that the most important needs are met first and evaluating the benefits of training. In addition, many CHCOs do not have information from component or sub-agency leaders regarding their level of investments and priorities. Consequently, some agencies are duplicating internal across their agencies. Federal agencies also need reliable information on how much they spend on training and for what purposes. However, several CHCOs reported they do not completely and reliably track training costs agency-wide.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provides guidance and assistance to agencies on a number of the leading practices, such as evaluating the benefits of training in three of its guides and in workshops. In some practice areas thatare challenges to agencies, such as prioritization of investments and determining whether to design training and development programs in-house or obtain these services from a contractor, guidance is minimal or absent. OPM also requires agencies to submit training investment data and provides guidance on how to do so, but considers this data to be unreliable because it is incomplete. However, OPM officials have not internally assessed improvements in the completeness of the data over the last 3 years or the quality of the data in the six years that agencies have been required to submit it, and have only provided agencies with one summary of their data for correction. Agencies and OPM reported there are also opportunities for OPM to help agencies reduce duplicative investments across agencies. For example, currently, agencies independently purchase or develop training for the same mandated or common occupational training. Agency leaders and OPM recognize that this has led to redundant and inefficient federal training investments. According to OPM officials, HR Universitywhich is a website currently administered by OPM to provide training for the HR communityhas already resulted in a cost savings of $14.5 million as a result of sharing the best HR training government-wide. Several agencies and OPM officials reported that HR University could be expanded to provide mandatory mtraining and serve as a model for centralizing training in other occupations or functional areas, which could save millions more and help standardize training.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that OPM improve guidance and assistance to agencies inestablishing a process for setting and prioritizing training investments; improve the reliability of agency training investment information; and identify the best existing courses that fulfill governmentwide training requirements, and offer them to all agencies through the HR University or other appropriate platforms. OPM fully or partially concurred with four recommendations and did not concur with a portion of another. OPM, DOI and VA provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate, into the report. DOE and DHS had no comments.