	Background

IRS provides tax law assistance to taxpayers through IRS’s toll-free  telephone lines and tax law and return preparation assistance in person at  IRS taxpayer assistance centers (formerly known as “walk-in sites”)  nationwide, in addition to other means. IRS did not have data on  the number of staff that prepared tax returns at taxpayer assistance  centers. However, all staff providing tax law assistance  receive some training each year. Taxpayer assistance staff receive  training on technical tax law topics, how to use IRS systems and guidance  to answer questions, and communication. Responsibility for training and developing IRS’s tax law assistance staff is  decentralized. IRS’s Human Capital Office provides guidance and sets  policy and standards on training and development for the agency. W&I and  SB/SE each have a human resources office with Learning and Education  (L&E) staff who are assigned to the taxpayer assistance programs. Generally speaking, the  taxpayer assistance program offices identify training needs, L&E staff  work with program staff to develop and fund annual training plans, and  the program offices administer training. However, the cost data IRS provided did not include the costs of assistors’  time associated with training. Although these components can be discussed  separately, they are not mutually exclusive and encompass  subcomponents that may blend with one another. Specifically, IRS has not done an analysis to determine the relative  importance of the various factors, including training, that affect accuracy. Without an understanding of  the relative importance each factor has on accuracy, it is difficult for IRS  to make informed decisions about a strategy for improving accuracy,  including training’s role in that strategy. None of the taxpayer assistance programs collected another type of  information—best practices of other organizations learned through  benchmarking. Still another type of information useful for planning can be obtained from  evaluations of training efforts. This matters because the resources devoted to training are significant. Evaluating the Impact of Training on Accuracy Could Provide a Basis for Future Improvements

Given the importance of accurate answers to taxpayers’ questions and the  resources spent on training, the four assistance programs would benefit  from more sophisticated evaluations of the effectiveness of training. The  four programs all conduct some evaluations of their training efforts. Data Analysis Phase

All four assistance programs conducted some analyses of their training  efforts and analyzed stakeholders’ assessments of training to identify  potential improvements to individual courses. In addition, IRS devotes significant resources to  training its tax law assistance staff. A more strategic approach to planning and evaluation would have several  benefits. In addition, one taxpayer assistance  program is pilot testing such an analysis. The evaluations should include the following:    an analysis of the feasibility and cost effectiveness of alternative level 4  methodologies and a data collection and analysis plan,    a comparison of the accuracy benefits to the costs of the training,    benchmarking of the analytical methods and the results of the data  analysis against high-performing organizations, and    an analysis of stakeholder assessments of the impact of training on  accuracy. Appendix I: What GAO Looked For: Examples of Planning Practices That Would Conform to Strategic Guidance for Training

	Establish quantitative long-term accuracy goals that link to IRS’s strategic goals

As part of its process for deciding which training and  development programs to implement, steps to ensure  efforts will target needed improvements and enhance  needed skills, which would yield such items as  A logical or explicit link between the training and  development programs offered and (1) the knowledge  and skills identified in the skill needs assessment or   (2) the strategic and operational factors identified as  affecting accuracy (to the extent that the needs and the  identified factors could be addressed through training)

Appendix II: What GAO Looked For: Examples of Evaluation Practices That Would Conform to Strategic Guidance

	Establish an overall approach for evaluating the impact of training on accuracy (a level 4 evaluation)

Steps to ensure that analyses will help determine the  impact of training and development on accuracy  performance, such as    Analyses have considered and/or used an array of  approaches (both qualitative and quantitative)
Analyses that separate training from other strategic and  operational factors that might affect accuracy (to the  extent that it is cost-effective and/or feasible)

Appendix III: Assessments of Planning: Less Complex Tax Law Telephone Service by W&I CAS

	Establish quantitative long-term accuracy goals that link to IRS’s strategic goals

CAS reported an annual accuracy goal linked to IRS’s strategic goal of  improving taxpayer service.
Why GAO Did This Study

Millions of taxpayers ask IRS questions about tax law each year. While the accuracy of IRS's answers has improved in some cases, it is still not always what taxpayers or Congress expect. Concerns about accuracy have raised questions about the adequacy of the training IRS provides to its taxpayer assistance staff. Because of these questions, GAO was asked to assess the extent to which IRS's planning and evaluation of its taxpayer assistor training conformed to guidance published by GAO and others. Planning and evaluation are part of a feedback loop whereby lessons from one year can be applied to making improvements in future years.

What GAO Found

IRS devotes significant resources to training its tax law assistors to answer questions, by telephone and at walk-in sites, and prepare tax returns. Although IRS cannot separate the costs of training tax law assistors from other assistance staff, the thousands of staff devoted to providing tax law assistance receive training each year. The training includes classroom and computer-based training on such subjects as tax law and communication. While IRS has some data on travel and course development costs associated with training, it does not have data on what is likely the largest cost component, the value of staff time devoted to tax law training. Responsibility for training IRS taxpayer assistance staff is decentralized. IRS's Human Capital Office provides guidance and sets policy. The two divisions responsible for tax law assistance each have a human resources office with technical staff that are assigned to the various taxpayer assistance programs. Generally speaking, the taxpayer assistance programs share responsibility for planning training with human resource staff. The human resource staff are responsible for training evaluations. IRS's planning for taxpayer assistor training could be enhanced by a more strategic approach. To their credit, some taxpayer assistance programs clearly communicated the importance of training to staff and had knowledge and skills inventories. All the units had analyses of some of the individual factors that affect accuracy, such as the quality and use of their taxpayer assistance guidance. However, none of the programs had long-term goals for either accuracy or training or had benchmarked their training efforts against those of other organizations. Nor had they done a combined analysis of the major factors that affect accuracy in order to determine their relative importance. Setting long-term goals and analyzing training needs and relative impacts are important steps in strategic planning. Goals can provide a yardstick for measuring progress and benchmarking can help identify best practices. Analyses of relative impacts can help IRS make informed decisions about a strategy for improving accuracy, including the importance of training compared to other factors in that strategy. The taxpayer assistance programs routinely conducted evaluations of their training efforts. However, with one exception, the evaluations did not include analyses of the impact of training on the accuracy of assistance. Instead, the units conducted less sophisticated analyses of more immediate impacts, such as trainees' satisfaction. Given the importance of accurate answers to taxpayers' questions and the resources spent on training, the four assistance programs would benefit from more sophisticated evaluations of the effectiveness of training. One program had recognized the potential value of a more sophisticated evaluation of training and pilot tested an analysis in 2004. The value of evaluation is that it provides feedback about the effectiveness of one year's training that can be used to plan improvements to future training.