Specifically, this report (1) discusses DOE’s current process for setting its training budget, (2) identifies opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE’s training program, and (3) evaluates DOE’s draft plan for training the Department’s employees in the future. Those factors are that DOE offices and contractors offer a high percentage of training that is not mandated by laws and/or regulations and that DOE’s offices and contractors independently develop and deliver training. DOE’s Budget Process for Training Could Be Improved

According to the Office of Personnel Management and DOE guidance, certain steps are critical in developing a training budget. For example, one location offered a course to employees facing mid-life questions, another offered a course on determining social styles in the workplace, and a third offered a course on defensive driving. In the budgetary area, DOE has not successfully completed any of the critical steps needed to develop sound and defensible training budgets. It has not developed criteria on what type of nonmandatory training is appropriate within the Department, which has led to a wide range of nonmandatory training courses being offered. Finally, DOE offices have either not completed annual training plans or not completed them properly. Opportunities also exist for DOE to reduce its training costs. In addition, DOE has not standardized the development and delivery of training courses that have general application across the Department. However, it has several shortcomings. DOE training officials told us they were aware of these shortcomings and intend to address each of them before a final training plan is issued. For instance, DOE had intended to reduce by 50 percent the number of duplicate training courses offered by it and its contractors. In the draft plan, DOE estimates that about $2 million will be needed over fiscal years 1999 through 2001 to implement the performance actions contained in the plan. Furthermore, DOE’s draft training plan provides little information on the centers-of-excellence concept. Finally, even though DOE spent about 85 percent of its training budget for fiscal year 1997 on training contractor employees, DOE’s training plan does not address what steps should be taken to improve contractor employee training. Recommendations

To improve DOE’s new training plan, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy require that the plan include a realistic estimate of the overall costs to implement the plan and the overall savings to be achieved; an explanation of how DOE’s decentralized training resources will be committed to finance the plan; a policy regarding the use of the Department’s centers of excellence; and an identification of the steps necessary to improve contractor training performance.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) training program and the changes that are needed to address those problems, focusing on: (1) DOE's current process for setting its training budget; (2) opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE's training program; and (3) DOE's draft plan for training its employees in the future.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) DOE has not completed any of the critical steps identified in the Office of Personnel Management's and its own guidance that lead to the development of a sound and defensible training budget; (2) for instance, DOE has not defined the training needs for various occupations, including program managers and contractor oversight specialists; (3) in addition, DOE employees have generally not completed individual development plans, and DOE offices have generally not prepared annual training plans; (4) DOE could reduce its training costs by eliminating certain nonmandatory training and reducing duplicative and nonstandardized training across the Department; (5) about 90 percent of DOE's training, according to a departmental estimate, is not mandated by laws or regulations, but DOE has not developed criteria on the type of nonmandatory training that is appropriate; (6) as a result, DOE offers a wide range of nonmandatory training courses, such as a course on determining social styles in the workplace and one on employees facing mid-life questions; (7) furthermore, because DOE and its contractors independently develop and deliver training, duplicate courses exist and nonstandardized training occurs across the department; (8) DOE's draft training plan has several shortcomings that may preclude it from improving departmental training over fiscal years 1999 through 2001, as intended; (9) for example, the draft plan does not realistically estimate what overall costs and overall savings will result from the plan, how the plan will be financed, given DOE's decentralized training resources, and how DOE's training centers of excellence will eliminate duplicative training, as intended; (10) moreover, even though DOE spent about 85 percent of its fiscal year 1997 training expenditures on contractor employees, the draft training plan does not address the steps necessary to improve contractor training; and (11) DOE officials stated that they are aware of these shortcomings and intend to address them in the final plan.