HUMAN CAPITAL

Agencies Should 

More Fully Evaluate 

the Costs and 

Benefits of Executive 

Training

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate

January 2014

GAO-14-132

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-132, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U. S. Senate

January 2014

HUMAN CAPITAL

Agencies Should More Fully Evaluate the Costs and 

Benefits of Executive Training

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 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.

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. 

View GAO-14-132. For more information, 

contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or

Jonesy@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-132 Human Capital

Letter 1 

Background 4

Agencies Lack Complete and Reliable Data on the Cost of 

External Executive Training and Are Likely Underreporting 

Costs 6

Most Agencies Reported Evaluating Executive Training but Few 

Reported Assessing Its Impact on Agency Missions 12

CHCOs Identified Opportunities for Agencies and OPM to Achieve 

Efficiencies in Executive Training 16

Career SES and SES Candidates Said External Training is 

Valuable, but Training Programs Could be Improved 22

Conclusions 27

Recommendations for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 37

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Tables

Table 1: OPM’s Guidance Documents and Description 5

Table 2: External Providers Agencies Reported Using Most Often 

During Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 6

Table 3: Illustrative Examples of Discrepancies in Selected 

Agencies’ External Executive Training Costs (Fiscal Years 

2008-12) 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-132 Human Capital

Abbreviations

CDP candidate development program

CHCO chief human capital officer

CLO chief learning officer 

ECQ executive core qualifications

EHRI Enterprise Human Resources Integration

FEI Federal Executive Institute

Energy Department of Energy

ODNI Office of the Director of National Intelligence

OPM Office of Personnel Management

QRB Qualifications Review Board

SES Senior Executive Service

SESCDP Senior Executive Service Candidate Development 

 Program

TEI Treasury Executive Institute

Treasury Department of the Treasury

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 31, 2014

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Dear Senator Grassley: 

Senior leaders of the federal workforce are responsible for directing a 

broad range of essential government activities, such as acquiring weapon 

systems to safeguard the country or providing accurate and timely 

benefits to the elderly. Effective leadership, especially at senior levels, is 

essential to providing accountable, committed, consistent, and sustained 

attention to these and other organizational issues facing the government.

The Senior Executive Service (SES), the government’s most senior-level 

career leaders, is relatively small—about 7,000 members in 2012—and 

represents less than one percent of the over two million federal civilian 

employees. Underscoring the importance of high-value executive training, 

the Partnership for Public Service recently reported on weaknesses in 

talent development for the SES pipeline, and the need to ensure effective 

leadership in these positions.1 The federal government annually spends 

millions of dollars on executive training programs administered by training 

providers external to federal agencies, in order to provide its senior 

leaders with the necessary skills to fulfill their agencies’ missions. These 

programs can range widely in both duration and costs, from a four-hour 

session at a cost of $200 per federal employee to a four-week program 

costing over $20,000 or more per federal employee. The cost of these 

training sessions has raised questions about the value they provide to the 

federal workforce.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and agency chief human 

capital officers (CHCOs) play important roles ensuring that federal 

 

1

Weaknesses in the SES pipeline identified by the Partnership for Public Service included 

(1) lack of a government-wide cohesive talent strategy, (2) insufficient attention to 

identifying, developing, recruiting, and selecting talent for the SES by senior agency 

leaders, and (3) a closed process that doesn’t seek talent from outside the agency. 

Partnership for Public Service, Building the Leadership Bench, Developing a Talent 

Pipeline for the Senior Executive Service (Washington, D.C.: July 2013). 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

training dollars are invested wisely. OPM provides leadership and 

guidance on the establishment and operation of efficient federal training 

and development programs government-wide; it also advises the 

President on the means for furthering federal training programs. The 

Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (CHCO Act) gave CHCOs the 

primary role in setting the workforce development strategies of their 

agencies, and in advising and assisting their agency heads (who are 

responsible for establishing priorities for needed training and 

development). The CHCO Act also established a Chief Human Capital 

Officers Council (CHCO Council) to advise and coordinate the activities of 

members’ agencies on such matters as the modernization of human 

resources systems, improved quality of human resources information, 

and legislation affecting human resources operations and organizations. 

The decisions that these key players make in determining how to best 

use federal training dollars for executive education will ultimately have an 

important impact on how well the federal government is equipped to 

address its current and emerging performance and management 

challenges in an era of constrained resources.

You asked us to review the costs of federal executive training programs 

provided by external providers and the value they bring to the federal 

workforce.2 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 training practices; and (4) provides views of 

career SES and SES candidates from selected agencies on the value of 

the training they received.

To answer the first two questions, we developed and administered a set 

of standard questions via a structured questionnaire to the 27 agencies 

represented on the CHCO Council to collect government-wide information 

on executive training programs, and if available, data on the amount 

agencies spent on executive training courses administered by external 

 

2

For purposes of this review, we define external providers as any organization (including 

educational institutions, professional societies, consulting firms, or other federal agencies) 

that provides training and is separate from the federal department or agency that employs 

the trainee. The external training providers are contracted to develop training courses or 

programs, provide the courses or programs, or do both.
 

Page 3 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

providers from fiscal years 2008 to 2012.3 We obtained agency executive 

training cost data from 26 of the 27 CHCO Council agencies and 

compared these data to training cost data from OPM’s Enterprise Human 

Resources Integration (EHRI) training database. We assessed the 

reliability of related cost elements in OPM’s training database based on 

reviews of our prior work on federal training investments,4 testing of 

agency data collected by OPM, and interviews conducted with OPM 

officials. We also assessed the reliability of executive training participant 

and cost data provided by agencies by examining the data for obvious 

errors and inconsistencies, and by querying 10 agencies to better 

understand the data systems each agency used to collect and report such 

data, as well as the quality of data entered into their system(s). We 

interviewed five external providers used by CHCO Council agencies to 

collect information on executive training offered by these providers. To 

answer the second question, we selected three agencies—Department of 

Energy (Energy), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA)—to obtain illustrative examples of how they 

approached, implemented and evaluated the effectiveness of executive 

training. We selected these agencies based on workforce size, number of 

career SES, total training costs, types of evaluations conducted to 

measure effectiveness of executive training, and whether agencies 

identified potential opportunities for achieving efficiencies in executive 

training. 

To answer the third question, we analyzed responses to our 

questionnaire from agencies, analyzed OPM and agency executive 

training policies, procedures, and practices, and interviewed agency 

human capital officials to identify potential efficiencies. We examined 

 

3

We sent a questionnaire to all 27 members of the CHCO Council and received responses 

from 26 of the 27 members of the Council. The Department of Education declined to 

submit questionnaire responses because, according to an Education official, the agency 

had no formal executive training programs, continuing professional development or 

curriculum requirements for either SES candidates or career SES during our study time 

period. SES candidates are GS-15, GS-14 (and equivalent employees) who are enrolled 

in an OPM-approved SES Candidate Development Program or an agency-funded 

program that will train and develop employees for the SES or an equivalent. We selected 

FY 2008 as a starting point for a five-year analysis of cost data in part because of the lack 

of the availability of data prior to that year. For a complete list of CHCO Council members, 

see the full discussion of scope and methodology in appendix I. 

4

See GAO, Federal Training Investments: Office of Personnel Management and Agencies 

Can Do More to Ensure Cost-Effective Decisions, GAO-12-878 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

17, 2012). 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

how, if at all, OPM, the CHCO Council, and the Chief Learning Officers 

(CLO) Council (made up of chief learning officers from the 27 agencies) 

share information on potential efficiencies by interviewing OPM officials 

and members of the CHCO Council and the CLO Council. To answer the 

fourth question, we conducted six focus groups consisting of career SES 

and SES candidates from our three selected agencies who had taken 

executive training to obtain their views on the usefulness and value of 

executive training. We then analyzed and summarized responses from 

focus group participants.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 to December 

2013, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details of our 

objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I.

The federal government has established a policy to develop employees, 

including its SES, through training and development programs in order to 

improve public service, increase efficiency and economy, and build and 

retain a force of skilled and efficient employees, among other things. 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 3396, OPM is responsible for establishing training and 

development programs for SES and SES candidates, or for requiring 

agencies to establish such programs that meet OPM criteria. If agencies 

establish these training programs, 5 U.S.C. § 3396(b) states that OPM is 

required to assist agencies in the establishment of such programs and 

monitor their implementation. In accordance with this, OPM has issued 

regulations on training and management development. For example, in 

2006 OPM issued a regulation requiring agencies to report training 

expenditures to OPM through the government-wide electronic reporting 

system.5 Executive Order No. 11348 (issued in 1967 and later amended 

by Executive Order No. 12107 in 1978) further requires OPM to assist 

agencies in developing sound programs and financial plans for training 

and to provide advice, information, and assistance to agencies on 

planning, programming, budgeting, operating, and evaluating training 

 

5

5 C.F.R. § 410.701.

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

programs. OPM provides federal agencies with assistance through two 

primary mechanisms: guidance documents and technical assistance (see

table 1 below).

Table 1: OPM’s Guidance Documents and Description

Guidance document Description

Executive Development Best Practices 

Guide (November 2012)

A compilation of best practices used by the public and private sector to support the 

continued learning of executives. OPM developed this guide to help agencies meet the 

development needs of federal executives.

Guide to Human Resources Reporting

(March 2012)

Requirements for agencies to provide updates of their training information, including 

training costs, to OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) data 

warehouse.

Draft Training Policy Handbook

(December 2011)

Guidance on implementing training activities required by laws and regulations on training 

and development in the federal government.

Hit the Ground Running: Establishing A 

Model Executive Onboarding Program

(October 2011)

A “roadmap” for a one-year program developed to help new SES members acclimate to 

the roles and responsibilities associated with the SES corps.

Training Evaluation Field Guide (January 

2011)

Information on methodologies for conducting training evaluations with the goal of 

identifying cost effective training initiatives that maximize mission accomplishments.

Guide to Senior Executive Service 

Qualifications (June 2010)

Information on the executive core qualifications (ECQ) and how agency officials can 

ensure that their executive training programs align with these ECQs.

Guide for Collection and Management of 

Training Information (August 2008)

Guidance to assist agencies in complying with the legal and regulatory instructions for 

collecting and managing federal training information.

Source: GAO analysis of OPM guidance documents.

Executive training courses are one part of a foundation of executive 

education programs that include coaching and rotational assignments to 

help executives understand leadership roles and responsibilities in their 

respective agencies. OPM reviews and certifies agencies’ SES candidate 

development programs (CDPs), which are designed to train potential SES 

members. OPM also convenes Qualifications Review Boards (QRBs), 

staffed by SES members across government, to provide an independent 

peer review of candidates proposed for initial career appointment to the 

SES.
 

Page 6 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

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. On average, the

agencies collectively reported spending between $9 and $15 million 

dollars a year (in constant dollars) on external executive training over the 

5-year period.

The 26 CHCO agencies reported using at least 410 external providers 

from fiscal years 2008 to 2012 for executive training. Among the external 

providers most often used, CHCO agencies reported using OPM’s 

Federal Executive Institute (FEI) more than other external providers (see 

table 2).

Table 2: External Providers Agencies Reported Using Most Often During Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 

External provider

Number of agencies reporting using

external provider, fiscal years 2008-12

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) – Federal Executive Institute (FEI) 22

Harvard University - Kennedy School of Government 17

OPM – courses not administered by FEI a 17

Brookings Institution 15

Center for Creative Leadership 11

Graduate School USA 10

American Management Association 8 

Department of Veterans Affairs - Leading EDGE 7 

Management Concepts, Inc. 7 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

a

Includes courses offered by OPM’s Management Development Centers.

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
 

Page 7 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

OPM requires agencies to maintain records of training plans, 

expenditures, and activities, and to submit the recorded data to OPM.

Since 2006, OPM has required agencies to report training data to OPM 

monthly via OPM’s EHRI system. OPM’s Guide to Human Resources 

Reporting states that these data should include training materials cost, 

per diem cost, travel cost, and tuition and fees. Further, federal financial 

accounting standards state that reliable information on the costs of 

federal programs or activities is crucial for effective management of 

government operations; federal financial accounting standards also state 

that Congress needs cost information to evaluate program performance, 

to make program authorization decisions, and to compare alternative 

courses of action.6

External providers employed different approaches for executive training, 

which had different cost implications. Based on external providers’ views, 

the cost of individual executive education training courses can vary 

greatly among external providers due to a variety of factors, including 

location of training, length of training, and whether courses are tailored to 

meet the mission and goals of a particular agency. For example, VA’s 

Leading EDGE (Executives Driving Government Excellence) program 

offers half-day executive training workshops to all agencies where 

employees can participate either in person or online. The workshops can 

serve from about 300 to over 700 participants. According to Leading 

EDGE’s executive director, the annual cost for Leading EDGE is about 

$850 per participant without coaching and $2,100 per participant with 

coaching. Other external providers we contacted host residential training 

courses or programs which are off-site from participant’s work locations 

and last over a period of several days or weeks, including the following:

• Leadership for a Democratic Society: FEI hosts this 22-day course 

over 28 days (includes weekends), which addresses (among other 

subjects) constitutional principles, personal leadership, organizational 

theory, and the policy framework in which governmental leadership 

occurs. In FY 2012, attending this course cost about $20,000.7

 

6

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 4, Managerial Cost Accounting 

Standards and Concepts establishes standards for managerial cost accounting at federal 

entities. The standards require federal entities to accumulate the costs of activities on a 

regular basis, using either costs accounting systems or cost finding techniques.

7

Includes costs for tuition, lodging, meals, and course materials.
 

Page 8 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

• Senior Executive Fellows Program: the Harvard Kennedy School of 

Government hosts this 22-day program over 27 days (includes 

weekends) and addresses (among other subjects) political 

management, effective implementation, and performance 

management. In FY 2012, attending this course cost about $18,000.8

• Leadership at the Peak: The Center for Creative Leadership offers 

this 5-day course which focuses on key leadership competencies 

such as communication, influence, validating and articulating a vision, 

and leading outwardly. The course incorporates a five-month learning 

experience including five days of classroom training, and other 

activities such as assessments and executive coaching sessions. In 

FY 2012, attending this course cost about $9,000.9

• Executive Leadership for America: The Brookings Institution conducts 

this 6-day course which addresses (among other subjects) the 

historical framework for constitutional government and how to create 

an organizational environment that is responsive to change. In FY 

2012, attending this course cost about $6,000.10

Agencies track some—but not all—costs of executive training 

administered by external providers. All 26 of the agency CHCOs that 

responded to our questionnaire provided data on executive training 

administered by external providers; however, half of the agencies 

reported that the data they provided were incomplete, and in some cases, 

had limitations. In addition, during our review, agency officials from 4 of 

the 26 agencies asked us to clarify the cost data we requested, noting

that training cost data are not always readily available within their 

agencies. They explained that in order to respond to our data request, in 

some cases they would have to manually retrieve paper documents and 

tabulate the costs. Moreover, the agencies provided data that included 

different cost components. For example, one agency reported that it did 

 

8

Includes costs for tuition, lodging, most meals, books, supplies, and outside co-curricular 

events.

9

Includes costs for tuition, most meals and transportation during classroom training, 

classroom materials, use of Center for Creative Leadership campus facility and 

equipment, pre-program and post-program assessments, and pre-program and postprogram executive coaching sessions.

10Includes costs for tuition, lodging, all meals, and course materials.

Agencies Experience 

Challenges in Collecting 

and Reporting Data
 

Page 9 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

not include costs for course materials. Two other agencies reported that 

they did not include costs for travel, lodging, or per diem. Other CHCO 

agencies cited additional problems with tracking and summarizing costs 

paid to external providers of executive education. For example, one 

agency reported experiencing challenges in tracking training costs 

agency-wide. According to agency officials, they were unable to 

completely (or 100 percent) accurately track training costs across the 

department because of the multiple, incompatible learning management 

systems that the department uses to track training throughout the 

agency.11 In addition, they stated that the agency’s practices for tracking 

training data are inconsistent within the agency because agency 

components do not always report training completed with external 

providers to the agency’s shared training database system. Another 

agency said its agency-wide training data were incomplete and unreliable 

because its internal training and financial tracking systems were 

incompatible with each other. In light of all these factors, agencies are 

likely underreporting the amount they spent on executive training.

In our interviews with Energy, Treasury, and VA, the CHCOs (or their 

representatives) reported that their agencies track and report training cost 

data to OPM in various formats, some automated and some manual.

However, the three agencies reported facing challenges tracking cost 

data. Energy reported that executive training reporting is not consistent 

across the agency because many Energy components have direct 

funding streams from Congress and schedule their own training 

programs; thus, they do not always report training completed with 

external providers to Energy’s Office of Human Capital. Moreover, 

because Energy’s Office of Human Capital has no direct access to 

component organization records, the CHCO cannot ensure that all of 

Energy’s funded and administered training programs are tracked and 

reported to EHRI and OPM; in addition, Energy’s CHCO cannot identify 

whether executive training is reported to OPM by a component 

organization in a separate report or with other line item reporting of 

completed training. However, the cost and delivery of Energy’s SES 

candidate development program and its executive training provided 

centrally by Energy’s Office of Human Capital is normally tracked and 

reported on an annual basis although Energy has not had any recent 

 

11A learning management system is a software application that automates the 

administration, tracking, and reporting of training events.
 

Page 10 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

centrally funded executive learning activities. Treasury and VA also 

reported difficulties in collecting and tracking reliable executive training 

data. Treasury reported that some of its individual bureaus were 

challenged by our request to provide executive training cost data because 

the costs had to be identified by a manual review of financial transaction 

listings. They stated that part of the reason the costs were difficult to pull 

together is that the training costs were not reported via OPM’s Standard 

Form 182—which is used to collect and document training information for 

inclusion in participants’ employee records and the EHRI database. 

Treasury officials explained that much of its reported executive training 

was done by contract and was not procured by either the individual or the 

individual offices that would normally complete the training form. As a 

result, Treasury enlisted multiple sources to pull the data together at each 

of the agency’s bureaus. Treasury officials reported that the agency is 

working internally to determine how to track this information at the 

department level. VA reported two issues with its electronic reporting of 

data to EHRI: inconsistent recording of overall training cost data in its 

training management system, and incompatibility between VA’s learning 

management system and EHRI.

We found discrepancies between the data for external executive training 

costs that agencies submitted to us and the data from OPM’s EHRI. In 

most instances where we identified discrepancies, the cost information 

that agencies provided to us was higher than the cost total from OPM’s 

EHRI. Table 3 provides illustrative examples of discrepancies in cost 

information.

Table 3: Illustrative Examples of Discrepancies in Selected Agencies’ External Executive Training Costs (Fiscal Years 

2008-12) 

Agency

Executive external training costs

reported to GAO by agency FYs 2008-12a Executive external training costs

from OPM’s EHRI FYs 2008-12a

Department of Energy $6,382,000 $331,000

Department of the Treasury $8,179,000b $74,000

Department of Veterans Affairs $3,693,000 c

Source: Agency data obtained from GAO-administered questionnaire. OPM data obtained from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources 

Integration (EHRI) database.

Note: FY=fiscal year.

a

In fiscal year 2012 constant dollars.

b

According to Treasury, these costs include all contract expenditures by Treasury’s executive training 

facility, which also provides executive training to nine agencies and bureaus outside of Treasury. 

c

OPM’s EHRI database did not include any executive training data from VA for fiscal years 2008-12.
 

Page 11 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

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. OPM officials explained that although agencies 

have taken steps recently to improve their reporting of training data, some 

agencies continue to struggle with the reporting requirements, in part 

because these agencies’ learning management systems are not 

compatible with OPM’s EHRI. For these agencies, reports on training 

costs require manual uploading because some agencies cannot 

sufficiently aggregate training information at the sub-agency level. In 

September 2012, we reported on the weaknesses of training cost data 

that agencies report to OPM and found that several agencies were unable 

to collect reliable training cost data from components, due to multiple 

incompatible learning management systems and to inconsistent practices 

in tracking training cost data, such as the use of inconsistent coding 

schemes for tracking similar training activities. We recommended, among 

other things, that OPM (1) work with the CHCO Council to improve the 

reliability of agency training investment information, and (2) provide 

regular report summaries to agencies on EHRI training investment data 

and reliability. OPM agreed to work with agency CHCOs to continue to 

strengthen the use of the Standard Form 182 and to increase reliability of 

their training data; further, OPM stated that it would provide regular 

summaries to agencies on the training investment data submitted to OPM 

in order to improve transparency. However, OPM stated that these 

summaries will not directly lead to improved reliability of the data and 

explained that agencies must take action to improve the data to positively 

impact data reliability.12

OPM officials told us that they provide assistance and guidance for 

federal training efforts but because current training data is unreliable, 

OPM officials said they have not used it to inform their training guidance 

and assistance to agencies. OPM officials stated that they do not believe 

they have a viable way to enforce reporting requirements for training data.

However, OPM has avenues, such as interagency councils, that can help 

them assist agencies with fulfilling their reporting obligations. For 

example, during 2013, OPM officials reported that they, in collaboration 

with the Chief Learning Officers Council, created an interagency group to 

develop quality standards and desired reporting data elements to help 

 

12GAO-12-878.
 

Page 12 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

agencies collect the right information and to make informed training 

decisions, but as of September 2012, the interagency group has not 

established any timeframes for completing this effort. OPM reported that 

as of October 2013, the working group is moving forward on a project to 

develop guidance on prioritizing and ranking federal training investments 

that will support a broader effort to develop a single standardized process 

for prioritizing training investments. In addition, OPM officials told us they 

have been meeting separately with CHCO Council agencies to discuss 

each agency’s training data reported to OPM and any deficiencies noted 

by OPM. OPM believes this will help rectify situations where agencies are 

unable to report training data—among other types of data—accurately, 

completely, and in a timely fashion. OPM officials said that they also plan 

to meet with smaller agencies for these same purposes.

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. Without interim milestones and timeframes for these 

efforts, OPM may be missing an opportunity to better position itself to 

hold agencies accountable for improving the data.

Twenty-two of twenty-six agency CHCOs reported to us that they 

systematically evaluate the effectiveness of executive training by 

assessing participant feedback. Most agencies reported they do this by 

using end-of-course evaluations. Seventeen of twenty-six agency CHCOs 

reported measuring the impact of training on participant performance.

Five agencies reported using post-course surveys given to supervisors or 

participants to measure if what was learned affected the participants’ 

behavior. For example, one agency requested that managers and 

mentors of Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program 

(SESCDP) candidates fill out a questionnaire about the impact and value 

of the program for their candidate; this questionnaire included to what 

degree the candidate applied lessons learned in the program toward their 

developmental assignments.

Twenty of the twenty-six agency CHCOs said they changed their 

executive training program as the result of evaluations. Six agencies 

reported they revised their program’s content and logistics as a result of 

feedback. For example, VA reported that it reorganized its training 

Most Agencies 

Reported Evaluating 

Executive Training 

but Few Reported 

Assessing Its Impact

on Agency Missions
 

Page 13 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

schedule to add subjects that its senior executives wanted included.

Other agencies reported they expanded the program based on participant 

feedback. For example, one agency expanded the number of leadership 

development programs offered, while a second agency increased the 

number and types of training opportunities available for executives in 

order to increase participation in executive training. A third agency now 

offers more learning activities (e.g., virtual training events) that do not 

require travel, in order to better accommodate the executives’ schedules, 

as well as the current budget constraints within the agency.

A majority of agencies do not have a formal process for evaluating the 

impact of training on the agency’s performance goals and mission. Ten of 

twenty-six agency CHCOs – or less than half – said they measured the 

impact of training on the agency’s mission, while eight of twenty-six 

agency CHCOs said they measured the impact on agency performance 

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.13 OPM’s 

Training Evaluation Field Guide provides information on methodologies 

for conducting training evaluations with the goal of identifying cost 

effective training initiatives that maximize mission accomplishments. The 

guide is based on the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation, a popular model of 

evaluation that includes measuring (1) participant reaction to the training 

program; (2) changes in employees’ skills, knowledge, or abilities; (3) 

changes in employees’ behavior or performance; and (4) the impact of 

the training on program or organizational results, which may be split into a 

fifth level that includes a return on investment assessment that compares 

training costs to derived benefits.

Similarly, our guidance on assessing training states that to measure the 

real impact of training, agencies need to move beyond data on inputs and 

outputs by developing additional indicators that help to determine how 

training contributes to the accomplishment of agency goals and 

 

135 U.S.C. § 4103(c) requires such evaluation on a regular basis whereas OPM’s 

implementing regulations specify that such evaluations are to be conducted annually. 

5 C.F.R. § 410.202.
 

Page 14 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

objectives.14 The traditional approach of collecting and reporting data 

related to training and development often involves indicators that can be 

readily quantified, such as the number of employees trained, training 

hours per employee, and total training hours. While necessary, these

kinds of measures do not fully provide agencies with the kind of 

information they need to determine how training efforts contributed to 

improved performance, to reduced costs, or to a greater capacity to meet 

new and emerging transformation challenges.

Two of the agencies we interviewed, Treasury and VA, were among those 

who reported in their questionnaires that they measured the impact of 

executive training on the agency’s performance goals and mission. VA 

uses various assessment measures to evaluate effectiveness against 

VA’s overall mission and the VA Secretary’s strategic objectives for 

accomplishing transformation: VA reported that these measures have led 

to better training investment decisions. For example, VA includes postcourse requirements for its Strategic Leadership Course II – Basic, which 

is focused on providing its senior executives with tools to support 

strategic decision-making, critical thinking, and leading and driving 

change. Approximately 30 days after the training, class participants are 

asked to provide their “ah ha” moment from the training, with regard to 

their leadership style or techniques; approximately 90 days after the 

training, participants are asked how they have been able to apply the 

concepts from the executive training to their agency’s organization or 

mission. Sometimes specific questions of interest are substituted, such as 

recommendations on strategic challenge questions for future classes, or 

requests for programs or resources that they need to better accomplish 

their mission as strategic leaders. A second requirement may be 

assigned at the post 90-day training point. This requirement usually asks 

the participants to explain how they have applied lessons taken from the 

training to their organization or mission. Additionally, the agency provides 

assessment data to a team of program analysts at the VA Learning 

University who periodically provide the agency with feedback on the 

effectiveness of the program. According to VA, the evaluation tends to 

focus on the impact of training on agency mission and strategic goals, 

and also on return on investment; the evaluation also includes specific 

examples where senior executives applied what they gained at the 

 

14GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development 

Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004). 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

training and applied it to their mission in the VA. Treasury officials 

explained that while it would be hard to isolate when training by itself 

contributes to an individual meeting an agency’s goal, by aligning all of its 

programs to the department’s strategic plan and to the executive core 

qualifications (ECQ), they are ensuring the training support the agency’s 

goals.

CHCO agencies recognized the importance of evaluating the impact of 

training on their mission but emphasized the difficulty in conducting these 

types of evaluations. For example, two agencies reported needing 

additional assistance from OPM for these types of activities, such as 

centralized evaluation information on the performance of external 

providers. In addition, we previously found that some agencies found it 

difficult to conduct these evaluations because their cost and time 

demands can be significant.15 OPM acknowledged that some agencies 

struggle with evaluating training programs. OPM reported that it has 

developed and published regulations related to training evaluation. 

According to OPM, these regulations were developed to enhance the 

impact of training on agency mission accomplishment. The regulations 

generally relate to training planning, execution, and demonstration of 

value. However, OPM is not sharing lessons learned from agencies that 

reported having assessed the impact of executive training on agency 

missions. Given that less than half of the CHCO agencies reported they 

are evaluating the impact of executive training on their missions, sharing 

lessons learned in its oversight role could help OPM better position the 

other CHCO agencies for conducting such evaluations. 

We recognize that higher levels of evaluation (such as evaluating the 

impact on organization performance or the return on investment) can be 

challenging to conduct because of the difficulty and costs associated with 

data collection and the complexity of directly linking training and 

development programs to improved individual and organizational 

performance. 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. According to GAO 

guidance on evaluating training, factors to consider when deciding the 

appropriate level of evaluation include estimated costs of the training 

 

15GAO-12-878. 
 

Page 16 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

effort, size of the training audience, management interest, program 

visibility, and the anticipated life span of the effort. The guidance also 

states that each agency consider the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of 

conducting these in-depth evaluations, along with budgetary and staffing 

circumstances that may limit the agency’s ability to complete such 

evaluations.16 Without conducting higher levels of evaluation, agencies 

are missing information that could help them make more effective training 

investment decisions; in addition, OPM is missing the opportunity to 

assist agencies in fully understanding the benefits of executive training on

the continued development of senior executives and on the agency’s 

performance.

Twenty of twenty-six agency CHCOs responding to our questionnaire 

said they identified opportunities for achieving efficiencies in delivering 

executive training within their respective agencies. For instance, some 

agency CHCOs described steps agencies could take to increase 

participation in executive training programs within their respective 

organizations. For example, one CHCO said his agency could expand the 

base of eligible participants to include employees in other senior level 

positions outside the SES. Our guide for assessing strategic training and 

development efforts states that agencies should select employees for 

developmental programs, in part, based on the usefulness of training 

content given employees’ current duties and existing skills and 

competencies.17 Employees in other senior level positions could build 

their skills and competencies through participation in executive training; at 

the same time, agencies could increase participation in executive training 

courses by expanding participation eligibility to employees in other senior 

 

16GAO-04-546G. 

17GAO-04-546G. 

CHCOs Identified 

Opportunities for 

Agencies and OPM to 

Achieve Efficiencies 

in Executive Training

Opportunities Include 

Using Virtual Training and 

Centralizing Training
 

Page 17 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

level positions outside the SES, thus reducing unit costs of training 

delivery. Another CHCO said his agency is considering using executives 

and senior leaders to serve as facilitators for leadership events. As we 

previously concluded, efforts to identify cost-effective and robust options 

for designing training and development programs may include use of inhouse staff, such as senior executives, based on their capability to 

implement training.18

Four CHCOs said they are considering implementing or expanding 

computer-based training, such as use of webinars, online books, virtual 

“executive summits” with developmental sessions and strategic meetings 

for executives, and other online training programs used for executive 

development. One CHCO also said his agency is considering use of 

blended learning activities—which incorporate classroom-based and 

computer-based training—to maximize impact and cost-effectiveness. 

This is consistent with leading practices for training investments. 

Specifically, one such practice calls for comparing the merits of different 

methods of delivery—such as classroom or computer-based training—

and determining what mix of mechanisms to use to ensure efficient and 

cost-effective delivery.19 Another leading practice is for agencies to 

consider blended learning that combines different teaching methods (e.g., 

Web-based and instructor-led) within the same training effort and 

provides trainees with the flexibilities to choose among different training 

delivery methods, while leveraging resources in the most efficient way 

possible.20

In our interviews with selected agencies, Treasury officials reported they 

are working to centralize training for all Treasury executives through the 

Treasury Executive Institute (TEI) in an attempt to enhance Treasury’s 

return on investment for organizational performance and to provide more 

consistency for mission-critical leadership training. Treasury officials said 

they could use TEI to leverage training resources throughout the 

department, with a goal of providing “just-in-time” training to senior 

executives, rather than requiring them to set aside their normal job 

responsibilities for a number of months to attend training. Treasury 

 

18GAO-04-546G. 

19GAO-12-878. 

20GAO-04-546G. 
 

Page 18 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

officials told us the agency is in the beginning stages of obtaining OPM 

approval for an agency-wide SESCDP, which would allow Treasury to 

train executives from all of its components and would help Treasury fill 

vacant SES positions agency-wide. Treasury officials said they are likely 

to operate the proposed agency-wide SESCDP alongside the Internal 

Revenue Service’s SESCDP—the only SESCDP currently in operation 

within Treasury. Treasury’s efforts to centralize SES candidate training is 

consistent with a leading practice related to identifying the most 

appropriate mix of centralized and decentralized approaches for an 

agency’s training and development programs.21 In particular, centralizing 

design can enhance consistency of training content and offer potential 

cost savings through standardized record keeping and simplified and 

more accurate reporting on courses, certifications, educational 

attainment, costs, or standards.22

VA officials said they performed after action reviews on and made 

changes to their Strategic Leadership Course II – Basic course for career 

SES members within VA. Based on the reviews and subsequent changes 

to its executive training program, VA officials negotiated a new price 

structure from the course vendor to deliver the training at a lower cost in 

2013 than if they had used the course’s 2012 price structure. We 

previously concluded that agencies can use evaluation feedback to 

identify problems and improve training and development programs as 

needed.23 Based on modifications to its executive training programs from 

after action reviews, VA was also able to reduce program costs, thus 

increasing the efficiency of training delivery.

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. Treasury officials we interviewed said they 

actively market shared training services to the rest of the government 

through TEI. Energy told us the agency produces a catalog on a semi-

 

21GAO-12-878. 

22GAO-12-878. 

23GAO-04-546G. 
 

Page 19 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

annual basis with real-time information on leadership development 

courses and programs located throughout the country; according to 

Energy officials, government officials could use the catalog to reduce 

travel and per diem costs for executive seminars conducted around the 

nation by identifying equivalent training that is available locally for senior 

executives. Additionally, several CHCOs said their agencies used VA’s 

Leading EDGE program to deliver executive training. One CHCO offered 

to share training facilities with other agencies. However, one CHCO noted 

that courses sponsored by OPM and VA raised the possibility of 

redundancy in executive training delivery provided by the two agencies. 

According to our guide for assessing strategic training and development 

efforts, agencies can try to achieve economies of scale and avoid 

duplication of effort when assessing training delivery options by taking 

advantage of existing course content or training, such as sharable online 

courseware or multiagency training programs. Specifically, interagency 

training can help address common developmental needs governmentwide and promote cost-efficiency while taking advantage of existing 

resources rather than creating similar programs in multiple agencies.24

CHCOs from agencies responding to our questionnaire reported that 

OPM can take several steps to help both the federal government and 

individual agencies deliver executive training more efficiently. First, some 

agency CHCOs said that OPM should provide more training to senior 

executives government-wide that is free or lower cost to agencies. One 

CHCO noted that OPM could provide lower or no cost executive 

development opportunities to agencies by more effectively using 

technology to deliver virtual training. This would be consistent with 

leading training practices comparing the merits of different delivery 

vehicles, such as classroom or computer-based training, in order to 

assess what vehicles to use for ensuring efficient and cost-effective 

delivery. OPM officials said that agencies cannot avoid training costs, but 

OPM is trying to reduce agency training costs by bringing courses closer 

to agency offices and by using free space for training rather than renting 

sites. OPM has also developed free and fee-based training solutions for 

 

24GAO-04-546G. 

CHCOs Reported OPM 

Can Help Agencies by 

Offering More Lower Cost 

or No Cost Training and by 

Centralizing Training 

Offerings
 

Page 20 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

use government-wide, and hosts speaker series and meta-leadership 

courses for senior executives.25

Second, agency CHCOs said that OPM could take steps to help 

centralize training offerings for senior executives, such as creating a 

centrally funded SESCDP, and could coordinate joint training efforts 

among agencies. For example, according to one CHCO, OPM could take 

steps to encourage agencies to fill paid-for, but unfilled seats for 

executive training programs across agency lines. 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. An example of this type of executive training program is the 

Leading EDGE program administered by VA. This program is operated by 

a senior executive within VA and offers executive training to agencies 

across the federal government. According to the program’s deputy 

director, 17 federal agencies are participating in Leading EDGE training. 

Treasury’s TEI is another example of a shared service model that 

presents an opportunity to leverage resources across the government.

According to Treasury, TEI serves 9 other bureaus and agencies in 

addition to Treasury. Our guide for assessing training practices previously 

found that centralizing design of training programs can, among other 

things, offer potential cost savings.26

OPM officials agree they could centralize training offerings for senior 

executives. For instance, OPM hosted the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence’s (ODNI) suite of 12 courses detailing the full 

performance management cycle; in turn, OPM’s Human Resources 

University (HR University) made them available for use by other 

agencies, and OPM officials said they incurred savings of about $46 

million in 11/2 years.27 In terms of coordinating joint training efforts among 

agencies, OPM officials said they collaborate with the CLO Council, the 

 

25“Meta-leadership” can be defined as overarching leadership that intentionally connects 

the purposes and work of different organizations or organizational units. See Marcus, L.J, 

B.C. Dorn, and J.M. Henderson, “Meta-Leadership and National Emergency 

Preparedness: A Model to Build Government Connectivity.” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: 

Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, vol. 4, no. 2 (2006):128-34.

26GAO-04-546G.

27We did not independently verify the reported costs savings reported by OPM.
 

Page 21 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

CHCO Council, and federal agencies to provide joint training. For 

example, OPM collaborates with VA to implement the Leading EDGE

program for use by many agencies. OPM officials also suggested that 

federal agencies use additional FEI courses—and to reimburse FEI for 

implementing such courses through user fees—so it could become the 

federal government’s primary source for executive training. As mentioned 

earlier, sharing online courseware and implementing multiagency training 

programs can help agencies try to achieve economies of scale while 

avoiding duplication of effort in designing executive training courses that 

address similar content as existing courses.

OPM officials noted they are taking additional steps to increase training 

efficiencies beyond what agency CHCOs suggested. Attributes of 

effective training include planning training that considers governmentwide reforms and other targeted initiatives to improve management and 

performance, as well as administration priorities, legislative reforms, and 

major management challenges.28 In response to our September 2012 

recommendation on federal training investment practices, OPM officials 

said the agency is working with the CLO Council to draft a governmentwide mandatory training curriculum and finish plans to implement a pilot 

course for mandatory training.29 OPM officials also said the agency is 

working with CLO Council representatives to standardize elements of 

federal executive training programs by developing a framework for 

supervisory and managerial leadership development. The supervisory 

framework has been distributed to agencies. According to OPM officials, 

senior executives and other managers can use the supervisory training 

framework to identify learning objectives they need to achieve, and then 

target the right job assignments and training courses to address the 

objectives. OPM officials said agencies are not required to use the 

framework to develop their executive training programs; however, some 

 

28GAO-04-546G. 

29See GAO-12-878. We previously recommended that the Director of OPM, 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 other 

appropriate platforms) in order to reduce costly and duplicative federal training 

investments.

OPM Reports Taking 

Additional Actions to 

Improve Training 

Efficiency
 

Page 22 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

agencies are using the framework as a “roadmap” for aligning their 

training programs.

In November 2012, OPM also released its Executive Development Best 

Practices guide, which includes key themes and recommendations OPM 

identified as hallmarks of successful executive development efforts 

across the public and private sectors. OPM has also developed a training 

and development webpage where agency officials can find and share 

products and courses for all areas of learning and development. 

However, the webpage does not describe examples of agency efforts to 

achieve efficiencies in delivering executive training.

OPM’s efforts so far to work with agencies to identify efficiencies for 

executive training have been relatively broad-based; while OPM has 

taken steps to increase efficiencies, it does not have a process for 

assessing lessons learned from agencies about potential efficiencies in 

executive training that other agencies could implement. Our questionnaire 

results suggest that OPM can use its oversight role to take additional 

steps to assess and promote ways agencies can achieve efficiencies in 

executive training that have government-wide application. By not taking 

such steps, OPM may be missing an opportunity to better position 

agencies to achieve such efficiencies.

Career SES and SES 

Candidates Said 

External Training is 

Valuable, but Training 

Programs Could be 

Improved
 

Page 23 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

Focus group participants said that executive training helped them develop 

a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities in their respective 

agencies. Following visits to field offices during executive training, one 

participant said there is a significant amount of “interconnectivity and 

intertwining between different operations” within the participant’s agency. 

Participants also said they learned about key organizational issues and 

tools that they can use to address them. For instance, a group of SES 

candidates in one agency reviewed agency-wide telework implementation 

and developed a business case to overcome technical challenges related 

to phone systems.

Focus group participants from the three agencies we reviewed also said 

they developed or strengthened key leadership skills during executive 

training that align with ECQs and related competencies, such as

• Leading and communicating with people. Participants we 

interviewed said they learned how to better motivate and 

communicate with staff. One participant noted that “how you interact 

with people is critical” – a lesson that was emphasized when the 

participant was implementing difficult changes in the participant’s first 

SES position. The participant also learned to be both sensitive and 

emphatic when dealing with issues raised by staff members. The 

participant said that executive training enabled the participant to help 

transform an organization with “primarily a bad reputation” into one of 

the top performing organizations within the participant’s agency. 

Leading People is one of five ECQs highlighted by OPM.

• Problem-solving and decision-making. Executive training, 

according to participants, provided an environment where they could 

develop skills in problem solving. For instance, one participant 

described learning how to make more effective decisions by sharing 

best practices from different business units within an agency and 

noted that, as a result, the participant and agency colleagues “are 

making better decisions than if we were just kind of operating in our 

private little bubble.” Another participant noted that executive learning 

helps agency officials reach out to other areas in their organization 

and leverage others’ experiences in resolving problems, “instead of 

trying to reinvent the wheel” to identify solutions already considered 

within the agency. Problem-solving and decisiveness are two 

competencies identified under the Results Driven ECQ.

• Strategic thinking. Executive training courses enabled some 

participants to step back from managing day-to-day operations and 

Career SES and SES 

Candidates Found 

Executive Training Useful 

in Building Organizational 

Knowledge, Developing 

Leadership Skills, and 

Expanding Networks of 

Colleagues
 

Page 24 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

reconsider, from a strategic sense, what they wanted to accomplish in 

their position. One participant said the use of strategic thinking and 

leadership was necessary to create a vision for subordinates in 

conducting agency operations. A participant from another agency 

added that strategic thinking enables executives to consider the 

needs of stakeholders beyond one division and office, and to identify 

how any decisions the participant makes could affect an entire 

agency. Strategic thinking is a competency identified under the 

Leading Change ECQ.

Focus group participants also said that networking with colleagues and 

senior agency officials in executive training was beneficial during training 

courses and after re-entry into their positions. In particular, participants 

noted the following networking opportunities in executive training:

• Participation develops personal relationships that boost 

confidence and build networks across and within federal 

agencies. One participant said relationships built with others helped 

make the executive feel more comfortable in an SES position, and 

validated that the participant was “on track” when facing difficult 

situations on the job. Another participant emphasized that a significant 

amount of work in the participant’s position involved relationships 

formed in small groups during executive training with people 

representing other agencies.

• Participation builds accountability among executives within an 

organization. One SES candidate said that relationships formed 

during executive training extended into executive assignments 

following completion of training. The candidate said such relationships 

helped training participants hold each other accountable in their 

executive assignments, which can be a tremendous benefit to 

organizations.

• Participants develop better responses to customer and 

stakeholder needs. Multiple participants said relationships they 

established in executive training helped them collaborate to resolve 

customer issues. For example, two participants from different 

components in one agency said they developed a relationship during 

executive training that enabled them to work together to provide 

financial relief to an agency customer without using additional agency 

resources. Another participant noted he completed a $400 million 

project with another agency before a scheduled deadline, based on 

trust and relationships he previously built with fellow participants in an 

SESCDP.
 

Page 25 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

• Participation promotes interaction and relationship building with 

senior leadership to address organizational issues. From 

interaction with the Postmaster General, one participant learned 

methods to motivate employees following “massive changes” within 

organizations, such as those experienced by the U.S. Postal Service. 

Another participant (who was addressing equal employment 

opportunity issues) established a connection with an agency 

undersecretary, who allowed the participant to send staff to the 

undersecretary’s office for shadowing assignments to better resolve 

equal employment opportunity issues within the participant’s office.

• Participation facilitates brainstorming solutions to previously 

identified issues faced by career SES and SES candidates. Focus 

group participants in one agency discussed two cases where 

networking and brainstorming among executives helped solve 

problems and generated financial savings. One participant used a 

week-long training course to address implementation of a program 

involving overseas locations. Course members helped the participant 

develop ideas to adjust hiring practices that, according to the 

participant, saved the federal government money. Another participant 

noted that agency officials used executive training to determine steps 

needed to resolve backlogs of work within an agency; according to the 

participant, this work may result in cost savings for the federal 

government over the next 10 to 20 years.

Focus group participants found the use of cohorts—groups of career SES 

and SES candidates participating in the same training courses, and other 

types of groups—more conducive for problem-solving and knowledge 

sharing than use of large group settings. Participants from one agency, 

for example, supported the use of cohorts in executive training to foster 

connections and build a knowledge base outside their respective 

functions. Participants from Energy, Treasury, and VA said that 

participating in small groups and using learning tools—such as case 

studies and action learning projects—helped career SES and SES 

candidates enhance problem-solving skills and share ideas with each 

other. As an example, one participant said that members of small groups 

applied lessons learned from case studies towards real-life problems.

Another participant noted that classmates from executive training 

regularly met in groups to discuss challenges and share best practices 

with each other.

Participants also found executive training to be more useful when 

conducted off-site from the participants’ offices and when participants 

Career SES and SES 

Candidates Said the 

Usefulness of Executive 

Training Depends, In Part, 

on Program Structures 

Used to Carry Out Training
 

Page 26 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

could step back from day-to-day responsibilities. As described earlier, 

participants who were able to withdraw from managing day-to-day 

operations said they could incorporate more strategic thinking into 

considering organizational issues and accomplishments, and could better 

focus on learning needed skills to advance within their organization. 

Focus group members specifically praised the use of off-site training for 

allowing participants to develop ECQs, learn many of the skills needed to 

succeed as an executive, and refresh insights or skills they may not have 

used for a period of time, without distractions that may have hindered 

training at an on-site location.

In contrast, some participants did not find large gatherings to be useful in 

encouraging participation or integrating lessons learned. One focus group 

member noted that colleagues took advantage of large gatherings to 

complete training requirements without the need to pay attention to 

lessons learned from the gathering. Another focus group member who 

participated in a large gathering noted that attendees listened to speakers 

for several hours without collaborating with the speakers or each other, 

despite being informed they would be able to interact with people from 

other agencies.

Additionally, focus group participants said they found virtual training with 

computers, or with video or phone conferencing, to be less helpful than 

face-to-face training. For example, one participant said that virtual training 

tools, such as webinars, can provide effective training on technical or 

discrete subjects, yet are less effective for developing less tangible 

strategic, leadership, and executive skills. Participants said they found it 

difficult to build teams or individual relationships through virtual means, 

which limited networking and knowledge sharing. Other participants said 

they were multitasking and completing other tasks while taking virtual 

training; one participant noted that the training could be more interesting if 

delivered through other means and in a shorter time period.

Focus group participants also provided suggestions to improve the 

usefulness of such programs to career SES and SES candidates, while 

also increasing efficiencies in delivering training courses that could 

potentially reduce training costs for federal agencies.

As one example, focus group participants we interviewed suggested 

agencies could pool resources and consolidate executive training 

programs. One participant suggested the creation of a government-wide 

SESCDP through OPM or another agency; this step could standardize 

Career SES and SES 

Candidates Believe 

Agencies Can Take Steps 

to Enhance Executive 

Training Programs While 

Improving Efficiencies of 

Training Delivery
 

Page 27 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

program financing and rules for program implementation governmentwide. Likewise, focus group participants said executive training courses 

could be consolidated through the use of economies of scale which would 

acquire such training for multiple government agencies. Participants 

noted that the federal government—instead of individual agencies—could 

use its influence as a large-scale buyer to leverage taxpayer dollars and 

negotiate lower prices for training from external providers. Another 

participant suggested that the federal government could achieve cost 

savings by requiring external providers to compete against each other to 

provide executive training courses.

Focus group participants recommended the use of blended training 

courses—involving both face-to-face and virtual training—to increase 

efficiencies in training delivery. As mentioned earlier, participants 

described limitations in using virtual training such as limited interaction 

among participants and reduced attention paid to course material. 

However, participants said a blended learning model allows them to 

establish face-to-face relationships, with one participant noting that 

human interactions were a key part of learning. At the same time, use of 

computer-based technology and phone conferencing as part of a blended 

learning model enables participants to build upon such relationships and 

learn course material that can be effectively delivered through virtual 

means.

Additionally, some focus group participants suggested that OPM and 

other federal agencies could increase use of workshops and brief training 

sessions to deliver training more efficiently to executives. Specifically, use 

of one-day workshops and training sessions could increase participation 

in training by bringing together executives from multiple agencies to 

encourage cross-pollination of ideas and to learn improved leadership 

techniques. Finally, participants said that agencies could establish 

programs to increase selection of SESCDP graduates for open SES 

positions government-wide. These steps, according to participants, would 

allow agencies to more efficiently use training acquired by SESCDP 

graduates, and to achieve greater cost efficiencies by filling vacant 

agency SES positions with SESCDP graduates from other agencies.

Agencies are using their executive training programs to help develop the 

necessary leadership skills for executives to effectively manage the 

nation’s most pressing priorities. Agencies recognize that evaluating 

executive training activities yields useful information for improving 

investment decisions. Yet, agencies can only make decisions that 

Conclusions
 

Page 28 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

improve the value of executive training when they have complete and 

reliable training cost data and some measure of how the training benefits 

the agency beyond just a measure of participant feedback. Over 7 years 

have elapsed since agencies were required to report training cost data to 

OPM, and many agencies are not yet accurately and completely reporting 

this information. For corrective actions OPM has already initiated, 

establishing milestones could help ensure that efforts progress as 

intended. 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. Improving the overall reliability of the data would 

better position OPM and the agencies to make sound decisions on 

training investments.

Half of the CHCOs reported they do not have complete information on the 

cost of executive training provided by external training providers.

Moreover, many agency CHCOs struggle to conduct evaluations that 

identify the impact of training on organizational performance and agency 

mission, although a few CHCO agencies reported conducting such 

evaluations. 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. Additionally, 

many CHCOs believe there are opportunities for an increased role by 

OPM for improving efficiency in executive training and providing options 

for achieving efficiencies. 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. Given the fiscal challenges facing the nation, and the 

increasing complexity of policy issues managed by the SES, it is 

important for agency leaders and for OPM to take advantage of 

reasonable opportunities to share resources and improve the efficiency of 

training investments.

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:

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 29 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

• 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.

• Improve assistance to agencies regarding evaluating the impact of 

executive training on mission and goals, for example by sharing 

information and examples of how agencies could better conduct such 

evaluations.

To enhance the efficiency of executive training, we also recommend that 

the Director of OPM, in coordination with the CHCO Council

• Assess potential efficiencies identified by agencies for possible 

government-wide implementation, and then take the steps necessary 

to implement these, such as updating the guidance governing 

executive training programs.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OPM for review and 

comment. OPM provided written comments, which are reprinted in 

appendix II. OPM concurred with our recommendations and is engaged in 

a number of activities that would help to achieve the objectives of our 

recommendations. However, we believe that more steps can be taken.

In response to our first recommendation, OPM discussed actions it has 

initiated to address agencies’ training data deficiencies including 

launching the Federal Training Investments Work Group, a group of Chief 

Learning Officers, to help OPM define data elements that can and should 

be captured within agency automated learning management systems. 

OPM’s plan is to provide technical assistance to individual agencies 

during FY 2014 to help build agency capacity and to allow agencies to set 

milestones for improvement after assessing their training data using 

forthcoming standards. We believe OPM could work with agencies to set 

timeframes for agencies to have a plan in place for improving 

completeness and reliability of agency data on executive training costs. 

Working with agencies to mutually set timeframes would help OPM hold 

agencies accountable for improving training data, thus moving agencies 

towards meeting reporting requirements set in 2006. 

In response to our second recommendation, OPM stated that it currently 

provides assistance to agencies on evaluating the impact of executive 

training through use of the OPM Training Evaluation Field Guide, which is 

included in our report, but did not indicate whether or how it measures the 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 30 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

effectiveness of that guidance. We believe OPM could further strengthen 

its assistance by leveraging the experiences of agencies that have 

conducted these evaluations by sharing techniques and approaches with 

CHCO agencies that continue to struggle with evaluating executive 

training. OPM could also ask agencies to assess the effectiveness of its

assistance. 

In response to our third recommendation, OPM highlighted its Executive 

Development Best Practices Guide which contains a compilation of 

executive development best practices used by the public and private 

sector to support the continued learning of executives, as well as 

additional actions it has taken to help educate agencies on achieving 

efficiencies in executive training. In its oversight role, OPM, together with 

agencies, can develop and use criteria to assess efficiencies put in place 

by agencies that have potential government-wide application. For 

instance, OPM can assess agency initiatives—such as creating a 

centrally-funded SESCDP, or coordinating joint training efforts among 

agencies—to determine whether these alternative approaches are 

appropriate for wider application. 

OPM also provided technical comments on the draft report, which we 

incorporated in the report as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director 

of OPM and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO website at www.gao.gov. If you have 
 

Page 31 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-2717 or 

jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix 

III.

Sincerely yours,

Yvonne D. Jones 

Director 

Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

The objectives of this engagement were to review the costs of federal 

executive training programs and the value they provide to the federal 

workforce. 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.

For the purposes of this review, we define the key terms “executive 

training,” “external provider,” “SES candidates,” and “career SES” as 

follows:

• Executive training is classroom or computer-based instruction in 

leadership or development programs with a focus on the Office of 

Personnel Management’s (OPM) executive core qualifications (ECQ). 

Each individual training episode should be indicated by completion of 

Standard Form 182.

• External provider is any organization (including educational 

institutions, professional societies, think tank organizations, or 

consulting firms) that provides training and is independent from the 

federal department or agency that employs the trainee. The external 

training provider is contracted to develop or provide training courses 

or programs. In this case, OPM’s Federal Executive Institute (FEI) and 

Management Development Centers are considered external 

providers.

• SES candidates are GS-15, GS-14, and equivalent employees who 

are enrolled in either (1) an OPM-approved SES Candidate 

Development Program or (2) any agency-funded program that will 

train and develop employees for the SES or an equivalent.

• Career SES or equivalents are those members with civil service 

status who are appointed competitively to SES positions or 

equivalents in positions below the top political appointees in the 

executive branch of government.

To obtain government-wide information on agency executive training 

programs, we developed a questionnaire on agency executive training 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

practices and processes and administered it to 27 agencies represented 

on the CHCO Council.1 Through the questionnaire, we obtained high-level 

information on executive training programs, evaluation practices, and 

opportunities to achieve efficiencies in such programs, as identified by 

agencies. To the extent available, we also collected data on the amount 

agencies spent on executive training courses administered by external 

providers from fiscal years 2008 to 2012.2 We provided a standard set of 

questions to each CHCO to ensure we consistently captured their 

responses to our questions on their executive training practices. We 

received responses, supporting documentation, or both from 26 of 27 

agencies.3 To analyze the information we received, one analyst inputted 

responses to quantitative questions and analyzed the responses for 

univariate statistics using Microsoft Excel; a second analyst checked the 

input and analysis of responses for accuracy. For the responses to openended questions, we conducted a content analysis to identify common 

themes among the 26 respondent agencies.

We assessed the reliability of executive training participant and cost data 

from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) system 

based on reviews of our prior work on federal training investments,4

 

1

The 27 CHCO Council agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 

Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing 

and Urban Development , Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, and 

Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Management and Budget, Office of 

Personnel Management, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Small Agency 

Council, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Agency 

for International Development. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) received a 

questionnaire instead of the Small Agency Council (SAC), as FLRA’s CHCO represented 

SAC on the CHCO Council during the course of our work. 

2

We selected fiscal year 2008 as a starting point for a five-year analysis because of the 

lack of availability of data prior to that year.

3

One agency – the Department of Education – declined to submit questionnaire 

responses because, according to an Education official, the agency had no formal 

executive training programs, continuing professional development, or curriculum 

requirements for either SES candidates or career SES during our study time period.

4

See GAO, Federal Training Investments: Office of Personnel Management and Agencies 

Can Do More to Ensure Cost-Effective Decisions, GAO-12-878 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

17, 2012), and Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 

Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

1, 2004).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

testing of agency data from an OPM executive training dataset, and 

interviews conducted with OPM officials. We determined that the data 

provided in EHRI was reliable for the purposes of selecting case 

examples and for comparing participant and cost data in EHRI to similar 

data provided directly by agencies. We also assessed the reliability of 

executive training participant and cost data provided by agencies in 

response to our questionnaire. Specifically, we examined the data 

provided for obvious errors and inconsistencies and we also queried 10 

agencies to better understand the data systems each agency used to 

collect and report executive training participant and cost data, as well as 

the quality of data entered into their system(s).5 We determined that 

aggregated participant and cost data for fiscal years 2008 to 2012 are 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report; however, we qualified 

these data throughout the report due to potential underreporting from 

agencies.

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. We selected these agencies based on workforce size, 

number of career SES, total training costs, and types of evaluations 

conducted to measure effectiveness of executive training, and whether 

agencies identified potential opportunities for achieving efficiencies in 

executive training. We interviewed agency officials from the three 

selected agencies with responsibility for administering their agency’s 

executive training programs. To supplement and support the views 

provided by agency officials, we also obtained and examined available 

documentation (such as agency executive training plans, evaluation 

plans, and other documents associated with executive training) from each 

of our selected agencies. The findings are not generalizeable to other 

agencies or to the federal government as a whole, because we designed 

 

5

We submitted questions to three agencies– Energy, Treasury and VA – because we 

selected them as illustrative examples for further review. We selected seven additional

agencies based on agency size and total amount spent on executive training, including 

NASA, NRC, OPM, and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Justice, and 

Transportation.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

our selection of agencies to examine the experiences, practices, and 

perspectives of a set of agencies that, in recent years, have utilized 

external providers to train executives and have reported that they (1) 

evaluate the benefits achieved through executive training, and (2) have 

identified opportunities to achieve efficiencies in executive training.

Additionally, we conducted focus groups of current or prior executive 

training participants from the three selected agencies in order to obtain 

their views on the usefulness and value of such training and their ideas 

for increasing efficiencies in executive training delivery within agencies 

and government-wide. For two of these agencies, we conducted two 

focus groups for each: one representing current or recent participants in 

SES candidate development programs, and one representing career SES 

members. For the third agency, which did not have recent SES 

candidates at the time we selected our focus group, we also conducted 

two focus groups: one representing early career SES members who 

completed a basic agency leadership course, and one representing midto late-career SES members who completed an advanced agency 

leadership course. The insights gained from the discussions were not 

generalizeable to all career SES and SES candidates within participants’ 

agencies or to the federal government as a whole.

We also collected documentation from and interviewed OPM officials 

involved in the agency’s oversight function for federal training activities in 

order to obtain information on their roles and responsibilities in monitoring 

agency training programs, on their perspectives on executive training 

government-wide, and on steps they have taken to improve training 

efficiencies. We examined how, if at all, OPM, the CHCO Council, and the 

Chief Learning Officers Council (made up of chief learning officers from 

the 27 agencies) share information on potential efficiencies by 

interviewing OPM officials and members of the CHCO Council and the 

Chief Learning Officers Council. We interviewed five external training 

providers who were most frequently used by CHCO Council agencies, to 

collect information on executive training course offerings, costs, and 

evaluation strategies; however, the collected information is not 

generalizeable to all external providers.6 We also interviewed officials 

 

6

These five external providers include the Brookings Institution; the Center for Creative 

Leadership; the Harvard Kennedy School of Government; the Office of Personnel 

Management Federal Executive Institute; and the VA Leading EDGE program. We also 

interviewed officials from American University, another external provider of executive 

training.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

from the Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen Hamilton who had 

relevant expertise in federal leadership training activities in order to obtain 

information on prior studies of executive training, and on their 

perspectives about evaluating the effectiveness of executive training.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 to December 

2013, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 37 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 38 GAO-14-132 Human Capital
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 39 GAO-14-132 Human Capital
Appendix II: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 40 GAO-14-132 Human Capital
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-14-132 Human Capital

Yvonne D. Jones, Director, (202) 512-2717 or Jonesy@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Signora May (Assistant Director), 

Clifton G. Douglas Jr., Janelle House, Andrea Levine, Mark Ryan, Joseph 

Santiago, and Cynthia Saunders made key contributions to this report.

Also contributing to this report were Sara Daleski, Deirdre Duffy, Rob 

Gebhart, and Rebecca Shea.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451027)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.