To achieve this mission, State relies on more than 66,000 Foreign Service,  civil service, and LE staff at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and  serving at 271 missions in 189 countries worldwide. According to the organizational directive outlined in the  Foreign Affairs Manual, State “is fully committed to the career  development of all its employees, consistent with organizational needs, in  order to improve service, increase efficiency and economy, and build and  maintain a force of skilled and efficient employees.” The department’s  Annual Training Plan states that “the purpose of the department’s training  program is to develop the men and women our nation requires to fulfill our  leadership role in world affairs and to advance and defend U.S. interests.”
Located at the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training Center  in Arlington, Virginia, FSI was established in 1947 to promote career  development within the Foreign Service and to provide necessary training  and instruction in the field of foreign relations to members of the Foreign  Service and to employees of the department and of other agencies. In fiscal year 2010,  FSI had over 2,100 offerings of non-language classroom courses, which  include courses that focus on job-related professional and technical skills,  as well as leadership and management skills, at its domestic and overseas  locations. FSI has also increased its focus on distance learning in recent years. State Workforce Training Incorporates Many Aspects of Effective Training Programs, but Strategic Weaknesses Exist

State has taken many steps to incorporate the interrelated elements of an  effective training program—planning, design, implementation, and  evaluation—into its training for personnel, but the department’s strategic  approach to workforce training has several key weaknesses. State  demonstrated a variety of examples of ways in which the department has  endeavored to develop an effective training program, such as by compiling  an annual training plan and implementing a range of training evaluation  mechanisms. However, in our analysis of the extent to which State’s  training program reflects key attributes identified in prior GAO guidance,  we found several key gaps in the department’s efforts to strategically plan  and prioritize training, ensure efficient and effective training design and  delivery, and determine whether or how training and development efforts  contribute to improved performance and desired results. The department  also has a learning management system that can track delivery of training. State Lacks Data Needed to Assure That Support for Training Is Consistent and Appropriate

Although State collects some information on the cost and delivery of  training, the department does not collect data needed for an analysis and  comparison of training provided to employees in different groups,  bureaus, regions, or posts. Further, officials at most of the posts we  interviewed said finding time for training can be a challenge at post. We found  several potential gaps and areas for improvement in State’s efforts to  evaluate personnel training. Performance Measures Do Not Fully Address Training Goals

State’s performance measures for training generally do not fully address  training goals. However, the measures generally do  not fully address the goals and are output- rather than outcome-related. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of State take the following five actions:  To help ensure that State’s personnel training is connected to improving  individual and agency performance and that department resources are  directed to actual training needs and priorities, direct FSI and the Bureau  of Human Resources, in collaboration with other bureaus and offices, as  appropriate, to develop and implement a plan for a systematic,  comprehensive training needs assessment process, incorporating all  bureaus and posts. To enhance State’s efforts to provide transparent, complete, and accurate  information to help employees plan training and development throughout  their careers, direct FSI and other bureaus and offices, as appropriate, to  collaborate in developing and updating information for employees on  training to ensure that employees have complete and accurate guidance,  including information on any mandatory, required, and recommended  training for specific employee groups. In light of  recent GAO work addressing shortfalls in State personnel’s foreign  language skills, this report does not focus on language training. To identify State’s purpose and structure for training personnel, we  reviewed and analyzed legislative, regulatory, and State policy and  procedural criteria relevant to training, including information contained in  State’s Foreign Affairs Manual on key training roles and responsibilities.
Why GAO Did This Study

Because the U.S. Department of State (State) is the lead U.S. foreign affairs agency, its personnel require certain knowledge, skills, and abilities to address the global challenges and security threats facing the United States. State devoted about $255 million to personnel training in fiscal year 2010; the department's Foreign Service Institute (FSI) is the primary training provider for State's more than 66,000 Foreign Service, civil service, and locally employed staff (LE staff) worldwide. GAO was asked to examine (1) State's purpose and structure for training personnel and (2) the extent to which State's training incorporates elements for effective training programs. GAO reviewed and analyzed data and documentation related to the agency's training efforts; completed a training assessment using a tool developed based on prior GAO guidance; and interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., and at 12 overseas posts.

What GAO Found

State's purpose for training personnel is to develop the men and women the United States requires to fulfill its leadership role in world affairs and to advance and defend U.S. interests. State guidance outlines key training roles, including FSI's primary role in developing training policies and facilitating necessary training, and the Bureau of Human Resources' role in assigning employees to training and working with FSI to help ensure it meets their needs. Other bureaus, offices, and posts also share responsibilities for training. FSI currently offers more than 700 classroom courses, and has recently increased its focus on distance learning. Overall, about 40 percent of personnel training over the last 5 fiscal years, on average, was in foreign language skills. Other training for personnel generally focused on developing leadership, management, and other professional and technical skills and knowledge. State has taken many steps to incorporate the interrelated elements of an effective training program--planning, design, implementation, and evaluation--into its extensive training for personnel; however, the department's strategic approach to workforce training has several key weaknesses. The department demonstrated a variety of ways in which it has endeavored to develop an effective training program, such as by compiling an annual training plan, and implementing a range of training evaluation mechanisms and a learning management system that can be used to track training delivery. However, GAO's analysis found several gaps in the department's efforts to strategically plan and prioritize training, ensure efficient and effective training design and delivery, and determine whether or how training and development efforts contribute to improved performance and desired results. For example: (1) State lacks a systematic, comprehensive training needs assessment process incorporating all bureaus and overseas posts. (2) State developed training continuums to provide information for employees about training opportunities, career paths, and how training can help employees attain career goals, but the continuums do not provide complete and accurate information, and other guidance does not cover all personnel. (3) State lacks formal guidance for curriculum design and for data collection and analysis, and thus cannot be assured that proper practices and procedures are systematically and comprehensively applied. (4) State could not sufficiently demonstrate consistent and appropriate support for training, because the department does not track detailed information on training cost and delivery that would allow for an analysis and comparison of employees in different groups, bureaus, regions, or posts. (5) State's performance measures for training generally do not fully address training goals, and are generally output- rather than outcome-oriented.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making several recommendations for State to improve strategic planning and evaluation of the department's efforts to train personnel, including for improvements to State's efforts to assess training needs and efforts to ensure training achieves desired results. State reviewed a draft of this report and generally agreed with our recommendations.