U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–087 cc WASHINGTON : 2000

S. Hrg. 106–682

TRAINING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO BE

THEIR BEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

RESTRUCTURING, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

May 18, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman

WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Administrive Clerk

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

RESTRUCTURING, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman

WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director

Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statements: Page

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 1

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 11

WITNESSES

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000

Hon. John U. Sepulveda, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ...................................................................................................................... 5

Hon. Diane M. Disney, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Civilian Personnel

Policy, Department of Defense ............................................................................ 7

Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce

Issues, General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office ......... 9

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Brostek, Michael:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Disney, Hon. Diane M.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

Sepulveda, Hon. John U.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX

Prepared statements from:

Tina Sung, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Society for

Training and Development ........................................................................... 61

Bobby L. Harnage, Sr., National President, American Federation of Government Employees ...................................................................................... 69

Thomas J. Mosgaller, Vice President, American Society for Quality ........... 79

Hon. Deidre Lee, Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget ..................................................................................... 85

Letter to Senator Voinovich from Bobby L. Harnage, National President,

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO ............................ 90

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) responses to questions ....................................................................................................................... 93

(1)

TRAINING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO BE

THEIR BEST

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2000

U.S. SENATE,

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.

Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Voinovich and Akaka.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

Senator VOINOVICH. Good morning. The hearing will please come

to order. I want to thank all of you for coming. Today, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management will discuss a

critically important element in getting the government to run at

peak efficiency, and that is training Federal employees to be their

best. This is the sixth hearing we have held as part of our effort

to empower Federal employees and address the human capital crisis now facing our Nation.

Our primary purpose today is to broadly examine the Federal

Government’s commitment to train and educate its employees to

maintain their skills, enhance their performance, and ensure they

are able to keep pace with the ever-changing needs of the American

public. Just like incentives, training is a vital component in making

a world-class civil service. It is an investment in the most important resource that we have, our people, and the best way to ensure

quality in government programs.

The Federal Government employs nearly two million people in

thousands of offices worldwide. Regardless of occupation, there are

workplace trends that affect all Federal employees. For example, I

am concerned that some employees may not have the necessary

skills, particularly the high-technology skills, that will be necessary

to thrive in our technology-driven economy.

There is a realization across the government that technology is

transforming the private sector workplace at a pace which government cannot currently match. Many of you might be familiar with

the initiative that was proposed by the administration back in January to create a ‘‘cyber corps’’ to bolster the government’s ranks of

highly skilled computer experts. We must ask ourselves, does the

Federal Government have the strategic plan in place that will

2

allow it to embrace this workplace transformation, and if not, what

do we need to do?

These are extremely important and timely concerns. As many of

you have probably heard, there is a human capital crisis confronting the government. By 2004, 32 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible for regular retirement and an additional 21

percent will be eligible for early retirement. Taken together, that

is over 900,000 people.

If the economic expansion continues, the government will be hard

pressed to hire enough new workers to fill the shoes of baby

boomers who entered government service in large numbers in the

1960’s and 1970’s. Today’s college graduating senior is less likely

to enter government service than his counterparts some 30 years

ago. The Federal Government must act to counter this trend by offering the training and incentives that will make the Federal Government a more attractive place to work.

When I began to examine the management of human capital, I

asked my staff to obtain the training budgets of all Federal agencies so that we could review the level of investment being made in

our employees. I was surprised to learn that neither the Office of

Management and Budget nor the Office of Personnel Management

collected this information.

Therefore, we went directly to the agencies for this information.

Through this survey, I discovered to my further surprise that most

Federal agencies do not have ‘‘training budgets.’’ Rather, training

money is dispersed throughout agency budgets in operations or administration accounts. It takes a great deal of effort on behalf of

an agency to pull this information together from the different parts

of the budget to present a complete picture of training activities.

It was my intention to ask the Office of Management and Budget

about this convoluted budget structure and their role in setting

agency training budgets. Unfortunately, I cannot ask them these

questions today. OMB informed the Subcommittee that because of

scheduling conflicts, they would be unable to provide a witness

today.

I think it speaks poorly of the management side of OMB that

they have so few senior officials versed in these issues that testifying before the Management Oversight Subcommittee presents a

problem. This is the second management hearing—the first was

the Subcommittee’s March 9 hearing on human capital—to which

they have not sent a witness.

I am not the only one on this Subcommittee that has observed

it is ‘‘OB’’ with no ‘‘M,’’ no management.

I would like to come back to the survey of training budgets that

the Subcommittee is conducting. Through this survey, we hope to

develop a more in-depth understanding of how training budgets are

formulated. If we identify any common weaknesses in training activities, the Subcommittee may consider legislative remedies.

I want to say at this time, in all fairness, that part of the problem, I think, that the administration is having is that Congress

does not appreciate the importance of training, incentives, quality,

and some of the other things that are important to human capital.

When budget time comes around, members say, ‘‘Let us get rid of

3

that, let us get rid of them,’’ and they just do not appreciate how

important it is that you have a good team.

My staff has met with officials from the eight agencies which we

have surveyed to date. They shared several observations which, although not applicable to the whole Executive Branch, are nevertheless illuminating. Almost all the agencies said their employee training budgets were inadequate and that they could use additional

training funds. That is probably a lay-up shot. [Laughter.]

Senator VOINOVICH. When agencies undergo budget cuts, training is almost always one of the areas hit first and hardest. Costs

such as administration, payroll, physical plant, and benefit payments are either fixed and cannot be cut or are mandatory expenditures.

As I mentioned earlier, most agencies spread their training dollars throughout their budget. This is often done intentionally so as

to make it difficult for OMB or the appropriations subcommittees

to identify training money and reprogram it. In other words, some

agencies attempt to hide their training money.

Historically, most agencies had decentralized training activities.

Several agencies are centralizing their training activities to help

identify training requirements.

Several of the agencies are unable to provide information on

their training budgets from previous years because their recordkeeping is poor or nonexistent. This begs the question, how can an

agency plan its future training activities if it has no reliable

records on its past training activities? You have to have some baseline to start with.

Some agencies find that they need much better management succession programs so they can grow future leaders for their agency.

Finally, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss today’s

hearing in the context of the Subcommittee’s overall efforts and

goals. Any of you that have followed this series of hearings have

heard me discuss the human capital crisis and changing the culture of the Federal workforce and the workplace.

Through six hearings since last July, the Subcommittee has examined union-management partnerships, management reform initiatives, incentive programs, and training, which is the focus of today’s hearing. Each issue is just one component in building a

world-class civil service, and each hearing has built upon the last.

There is an important synergy between these elements, and if one

is weak, the other components are affected to the detriment of Federal employees and the people they serve.

It has been our goal through these hearings to demonstrate the

synergy that exists throughout the Federal Government and to

stress that substantial change in all of the areas we have covered

in our hearings is necessary if we are to achieve real and lasting

improvements in government operations. At the conclusion of these

hearings, I hope the Subcommittee can issue a report that will

identify our findings and, most importantly, recommendations that

will correct years of inattention to our human capital.

I understand that Senator Durbin is detained but will be here

and I expect that when he arrives he will have a statement to

make.

4

Our first panel today is composed of representatives from the Executive Branch and the General Accounting Office. We have with

us today the Hon. John U. Sepulveda, who is the Deputy Director

of the Office of Personnel Management and will describe OPM’s

role in setting training policies and how they work with OMB in

this regard.

The Hon. Diane M. Disney is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, and we have asked her to describe how the Defense Department assesses its training and technical requirements for its civilian workforce as well as the culture

of the Department, which stresses the importance of training.

Michael Brostek is an Associate Director of Federal Management

and Workforce Issues at the U.S. General Accounting Office, and

has testified here before. We have asked Mr. Brostek to discuss the

importance of training in human capital development.

Our second panel will provide us with a variety of perspectives.

First of all, we are lucky to have with us Bobby L. Harnage, Sr.

He is the National President of the American Federation of Government Employees. He will provide us with the perspective of

Federal workers, the people who I call the ‘‘A Team.’’ I am eager

to learn if Federal workers think that the training they are provided is adequate, and if not, what does AFGE believe needs to be

done to improve it and create an environment in which workers

can grow and do a better job of serving their internal and external

customers.

Then we have with us Thomas J. Mosgaller. He is the Vice President of the American Society for Quality.

And Tina Sung, who is President and CEO of the American Society for Training and Development. She is also the former Director

of the Federal Quality Consulting Group. We have asked Mr.

Mosgaller and Ms. Sung to discuss private sector education and

training practices and how the Federal Government compares in

general with leading private sector companies.

I want to thank all of you for coming this morning. We look forward to your testimony. As is the custom of this Subcommittee, I

would ask all of you to raise your hands and take an oath as to

the voracity and truthfulness of your statements, if you will stand.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

the truth, so help you, God?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. I do.

Dr. DISNEY. I do.

Mr. BROSTEK. I do.

Ms. SUNG. I do.

Mr. HARNAGE. I do.

Mr. MOSGALLER. I do.

Senator VOINOVICH. Let the record show that all of the witnesses

have answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Sepulveda, will you come up, and Dr. Disney and Mr.

Brostek? And it is pronounced Sepulveda?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. Sepulveda.

Senator VOINOVICH. Sepulveda. Pronouncing Sepulveda is like

Voinovich. It is tough to get, but once you get it, you will not forget

it.

5

1The prepared statement of Mr. Sepulveda appears in the Appendix on page 19.

Mr. SEPULVEDA. You are right.

Senator VOINOVICH. Again, I want to welcome you today. Mr. Sepulveda, we look forward to your testimony. I would, just before we

get started, like to mention that I would appreciate your keeping

your remarks to no more than 5 minutes. Your written testimony

will become part of the record. In addition to that, we would appreciate your entertaining some questions that may not be raised here

at the hearing so that we have a better insight and a full picture.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN U. SEPULVEDA,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Mr. SEPULVEDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of

the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in

your continuing effort to assess and enhance the Federal Government’s commitment to training its employees.

Let me assure you that we share your firm belief that Federal

employees must have the training and education they need to do

their jobs and to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing workplace. In fact, OPM is dedicated to ensuring that agencies receive

the guidance, tools, and leadership to deliver the needed training

to their employees and we already have in place a strong foundation to deliver this assistance and are interested in working with

you to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of our efforts.

We recognize your concern that Federal employees may not be

getting the training and education they need to maximize their talents and really make a difference in the lives of the American people. We are working with the Office of Management and Budget,

other agencies, and Congress to build a world-class workforce that

can compete with the best that industry has to offer.

The government’s human resources, our people, are our most valuable asset and we must nurture their potential and invest in their

development. Studies have shown that successful corporations continually invest in their people. Like the private sector, the government must consider employee training and development an investment that helps us attract, develop, retain the talented people we

need to accomplish our missions.

Recognizing this, in January 1999, President Clinton provided

pivotal direction to government leaders in Executive Order 13111

on using technology to improve training opportunities for Federal

employees. Our Director, Janice Lachance, is the chair of that task

force. The use of technology in Federal training and education is

increasing and we expect it to increase even more as a result of the

work of the task force.

The task force members are identifying issues and options and

recommendations that will provide better and more accessible

learning opportunities through the use of technology, and OPM, as

I said, has been leading the task force in this effort and we are collaborating with key stakeholders, the Federal information, financial, and acquisition communities to help them redefine their competencies and help them get the kind of training they need to be

effective. One of the major strategic objectives is to lead the transformation of training and development in the Federal Government

6

to focus on performance improvement and results which support

agency mission and goals.

OPM has two principal roles with respect to training of the Federal workforce. The first is to set government-wide training policies

Federal agencies use to administer their own internal training programs. The second is to provide executive development and managerial training for the leaders who direct the work of our more than

1.8 million employees.

What is important about this is that we want to emphasize that

continual learning for our current executives and developmental

opportunities for future executives are critical for delivering agency

results, and we view continuing development not as an add-on for

a successful executive but what you have to do to be successful.

We will continue to meet our statutory mandate to approve and

monitor formal agency candidate development programs, which is

a concern that I am sure you have, that we need to have the right

training to develop the kinds of executives that we are going to

need in the future. We have been working with agencies to develop

candidate development programs, and, in fact, we have 16 formal

plans in place at this time and we are working with agencies to develop other candidate development programs to develop the talent

that will begin to be available for those agencies in the future.

When OPM privatized its training operations back in 1995, we

purposely held on to executive development because we concluded

that it was important for the Federal Government to be responsible

for providing the training to our executive leadership to provide

that public perspective and the skills they need.

We are also working with our partners to develop an Internet

forum that will allow executives to have voluntary mobility in different agencies and assignments in different agencies to get the

kind of experience, the broad-based experience, to make them even

more effective.

And we are considering a government-wide authority for private

sector exchanges which will allow Senior Executive Service (SES)

members to go into the private sector and get the experiences and

some best practices and come back into the Federal Government

and benefit the agencies that they are working in.

Continuous investment in learning and development is critical

for improved government performance, and we recognize that many

Federal agencies need to do a better job of aligning their learning

and development initiatives with the strategic direction of the

agency. Many agencies are still struggling with integrating human

resources management goals and objectives and strategies into

their agency strategic plans.

Having recognized this problem, the President in his fiscal year

2001 budget added a new priority management objective which

charges OPM with helping agencies to align Federal human resources to support agency goals. Additionally, the Executive Order

charges every agency’s strategic plan to identify training and education as part of the strategic process. As opposed to something you

do after you develop your strategic plan, it should be integrated in

the development of your strategic plan.

And, indeed, we have been working with OMB to make that part

of the budgetary process that it puts each and every agency

7

1The prepared statement of Dr. Disney appears in the Appendix on page 38.

through, to have the information that they need to assess whether

or not agencies are, indeed, focusing training as part of their strategic plan and, indeed, make them accountable through the budgetary process.

We have other programs that allow us to develop the training potential of our employees, including something that came out of that

Executive Order which is the individual learning accounts, which

essentially permit managers to put into an account money or hours

or both that will allow employees to draw down from that account

to get the kind of training, whether it is provided within the government or outside of the government, to get the kind of training

they need to be effective, and we are really excited. We have about

13 pilots underway and we want to see how feasible that individual

learning account program is.

In closing, again, we will obviously provide additional information and answer any questions you may have about other programs

that we have going on to provide the kind of training that is necessary to build that world-class workforce.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much.

Mr. SEPULVEDA. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Disney.

TESTIMONY OF DIANE M. DISNEY, Ph.D.,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT

OF DEFENSE

Dr. DISNEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am

very pleased to be here today to testify about the education and

training of employees in the Department of Defense.

DOD is probably the premier organization for transforming raw

talent into highly competent performers. This excellence stems in

part from its unique structure and legal authority. Because there

is no lateral entry, anyone wishing military advancement must develop higher order knowledge and skills while in the service. The

up-or-out system permits us to keep only those who do the most for

self-improvement. Also, under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the services can specify absolute requirements for positions.

For civilians, the matters are less clear cut. Governed primarily

by Title 5, civilians are generally expected to bring the necessary

education and training with them. As a result, the Department has

long invested more in the military, whose future it controls, than

in the civilians, who are part of a Federal-wide system. However,

DOD is transforming its approach to civilian education and training to focus on the idea of investment rather than cost.

Let me set the stage. Since fiscal year 1989, DOD’s civilian employment has declined 37 percent. This has brought an increase in

the average age, increasing professionalization, and improvement

in educational levels. Outsourcing, base closure, and technology

have reduced the number of positions requiring limited education

and training. Simultaneously, advanced technology, contract oversight, and a much more complex mission demand more advanced

education and capacity.

8

To add complexity, our country’s low unemployment rate has

made competition for talent extremely difficult. Therefore, we must

invest more in training and education. To do so, we have a fourpart strategy:

First, research into what is happening and why; second, careful

accession management; third, development; and finally, transition

management for the smooth transmission of institutional knowledge and the maintenance of capability.

We have conducted several studies to determine the competencies that we will need in the future. Several broad themes

have emerged and are enunciated in my written testimony. To fulfill these, DOD has been providing education and training from

both functional and component perspectives. For example, Acquisition Technology, and Logistics has a policy of continuous learning.

Our intelligence community has assessed its needs to develop a

workforce with a community perspective and strategic outlook. And

another speaker today is going to outline some activities within our

Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Then there is our very special effort in management development. In 1997, we created our Defense Leadership and Management Program. This is our first systematic Department-wide program to prepare civilians for key leadership positions. It requires

a rotational assignment, professional military education at the senior level, and at least 10 advanced level graduate courses in subjects important for defense leaders.

DLAMP has heightened awareness of the need for similar investments in other areas. To that end, the Defense Science Board’s

task force has strongly endorsed that we expand DLAMP and recommended a preparatory program for the GS–9 through GS–12 levels, and we intend to implement that recommendation. The task

force also urged legislative flexibility to permit payment for degrees

and certificates in relevant fields of study.

In addition, the military departments offer a range of educational

opportunities. The Air Force, for example, uses the military model

of life-cycle management for its centrally managed, functionally led

career programs. The Army also has a centrally managed and funded system. About 40 percent of the Army’s civilians participate in

the 22 occupationally oriented career programs. Navy’s operations

are somewhat more decentralized, but the focus still shifts over

one’s career from the functional and technical to leadership development. Beyond these, individual DOD offices sponsor seminars,

workshops, and short courses to meet specific needs.

In sum, then, DOD recognizes that the effective management of

human capital calls for a well-tuned program of training, education, and development. That is why we are expressly dedicating

resources to investing in our civilian workforce.

That concludes my remarks and I will be pleased to answer any

questions that you have.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. Mr. Brostek.

9

1The prepared statement of Mr. Brostek appears in the Appendix on page 46.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BROSTEK,1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE

Mr. BROSTEK. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

every time an agency changes how it does business, employees

need new skills. Changes in agencies’ strategies for accomplishing

their missions changed during the 1990’s and likely will continue

to change in the future. Thus, training and retraining employees

is critical to achieving meaningful improvements in agencies’ performance. In short, investing in the people side of government,

those who actually run the programs, increases their capacity and

the government’s capacity for high performance.

The changes many agencies have been making in the way they

carry out their missions flow from a changing environment. Technology is one driver of those changes. The IRS, for instance, is moving from a paper to an electronic environment and expects soon to

have most taxpayers filing their forms electronically. Recent and

continuing downsizing also drove change, with agencies consolidating operations, automating processes, and often making more

use of contractors.

There is little reason to believe that change is going to stop. In

this environment, poorly or inadequately trained employees can

hamper agency operations. For example, the Federal Government

spends tens of billions of dollars purchasing goods and services

every year. As early as 1972, Congress recognized that the acquisition workforce was often inadequately trained for this task, and in

several statutes it pressed to improve training. Yet earlier this

year, we reported that neither the General Services Administration

nor the Veterans’ Administration could ensure that all members of

the acquisition workforces were receiving the core training and continuing training that they needed. Inadequate workforce training

can put at risk the billions of dollars of procurements that these

agencies make.

High-performing organizations consistently take three steps to

design and implement training and development programs. First,

they identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities and behaviors that

employees need to support the mission and goals of an organization

and they determine to what extent their employees possess those

competencies. Second, they design training programs to meet any

identified gaps in competencies. And finally, they evaluate the

training programs that they do have to ensure that they are actually increasing employees’ competencies and the organization’s performance.

We collected information on how four agencies, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Health Care Financing Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Department

of State, were addressing each of these steps. In summary, we

found that the glass was half full, or alternatively, half empty for

all of these steps.

For the first step of identifying any gaps in the competencies of

employees, the glass was half full in that all the agencies recognize

10

the importance of this fundamental step and officials said they had

identified competencies for all, or more commonly some, of their

workforce. It was half empty in that efforts to define competencies

were just getting underway in some cases and were not planned in

others.

For the second step of designing and delivering training courses

to address identified competency gaps, the glass again was half full

in the positive sense because all four agencies at least had training

curricula for employees in selected occupations and training was

being provided. The glass was half empty in that such formalized

training requirements generally existed only for selected occupations, and due to limited resources, some agency officials said they

could not train all employees that needed training.

For the final step, evaluating whether the training provided did

increase employee competencies, the glass was half full again in

that agencies generally assessed how satisfied were employees with

the training that they received, and one agency had a more extensive evaluation system for certain occupations. The glass was half

empty because employee satisfaction surveys that the agencies generally used are among the least powerful tools for determining how

successful training is and because agencies are only beginning to

develop better evaluation tools.

One theme ran through our contacts with the agencies. Officials

said a lack of staff and resources were affecting their ability to deliver training that they believed was appropriate to develop and

maintain the skills needed by their workforce. This is a difficult

issue that we did not have time to assess in depth. However, in

general, we believe agencies need to make a business case for adequate training funds. That is, they need to identify what training

is needed and how that training is likely to produce a return on

the training investment in terms of improved performance by individuals and by the agency.

If agencies are unable to obtain what they believe to be adequate

resources through the appropriations process, they may need to

consider internal reallocations of resources to cover their training

needs.

In conclusion, training is at least as important now as it has ever

been to improving the performance of Federal agencies. Recognition

of the importance of training to high performance seems to be

growing within agencies, but agencies generally make a case that

they lack staff and other resources to provide appropriate training.

Resolving the resource issue will not be easy, but must start with

an informed analysis of training needs based on the competencies

that staff need to carry out the mission of the agency. When training is provided, it should be assessed to determine whether the

training is indeed improving performance.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer questions.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much.

We have been joined by Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka, do you

have a statement that you would like to make?

11

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA

Senator AKAKA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank you very

much for having this hearing and for the opportunity to sit with

you and the Subcommittee as you continue this series of hearings

on the Federal workforce. As the Ranking Member of the Federal

Services Subcommittee, I have an obvious interest in how the government empowers its employees to meet the challenges of the 21st

Century.

As the Chairman and our distinguished panelists know, the Federal Government is at a human resources crossroads due to

downsizing, contracting out, flattened budgets, emerging technologies, and an historically low unemployment rate. Although

training programs are critical to skills development, Federal agencies were forced to cut back on training in the past decade. There

are hopeful signs, however, of a renewed emphasis on training by

the issuance of Executive Order 13111, which requires agencies to

use technology to improve training, to these series of hearings.

I am sure most of you read last week’s Washington Post on the

‘‘people crisis in the Federal Government.’’ The six articles brought

into focus the changes facing the Federal Government and its

workforce. One piece in particular caught my attention and that

was how the number of clerical positions have been cut by more

than half in the last decade. Almost one in seven Federal employees worked in predominately clerical positions in 1989. The figure

is now about one in 13.

However, clerical-type positions are in the top four new-hire occupations, according to OPM. It is important that secretarial and

clerical employees who are called on to perform a variety of roles

be afforded training opportunities to broaden their skills. Furthermore, as old clerical job skills have evolved, there is a need to make

sure these individuals have new skills. It would be unfortunate to

shortchange training for line employees in the push to ensure development and specialized training for executives and managers.

As a former school administrator, I firmly believe that education

and training are the anchor to a successful and strong workforce.

I am interested in looking at the legislative proposals mentioned by

Mr. Sepulveda, in his written testimony, that would provide agencies with enhanced training opportunities for Federal employees.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate joining you today and

I am hopeful that this hearing will shed new light on the critical

need to reinvest in training programs. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Akaka.

I would like to put in a plug for something that, Dr. Disney, we

are trying to do, and that is our Department of Defense Civilian

Workforce Realignment Act, which Senator Akaka may know a little something about. We have discovered on the civilian side of the

DOD that they have got some very, very severe problems and don’t

have the flexibility to get the job done.

We are hopeful that we can get Congress to pass it so that you

can have more flexibility to deal with the challenges that you have

in the Department of Defense. We tried to do that with one agency

last year and it was the feeling of my colleagues that not only do

we need it in Ohio, but we need it all over the country in the civilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:24 Oct 06, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 66087.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
12

ian workforce. So, hopefully, we will have some success with that,

but there is no question that we need to have a lot more flexibility

in terms of how you retain, hire, train, and all the other things

that you need to have that quality workforce.

I would like to ask all three of you the same question. Is the Federal Government spending enough money on training? Mr. Sepulveda.

Mr. SEPULVEDA. Let me take the first stab at that question if I

may, Mr. Chairman. I think it really is going to depend on the individual department defining what their missions are, what their

specific programmatic goals are. I do not think you can do that in

a centralized or macro way. You have to do it agency by agency.

Each agency has to define what it is they need in terms of competencies to meet their missions and then begin to do the hard

work of identifying the kinds of training programs that they will

need to have developed and then that will lead to the kind of budgeting that is important.

That is why, again, the President’s priority management objective begins to lay down that foundation. It essentially forces agencies as part of the strategic planning process to identify their training needs and then has OMB work with them in the budgeting

process to identify appropriate resources.

Senator VOINOVICH. I applaud that effort. This is the eighth year

of the administration. My recommendation would be that if you did

anything for the next administration, that you would really do everything in your power to identify and answer the questions that

I think Mr. Brostek made reference to—what are the skills that are

needed and what is the training that is needed.

What talent are they going to need and how do you take the talent that you have and get it up to where it should be. The next

group is going to have a very difficult task ahead of them if they

do not have it in the transition plans from the various agencies. I

went through that when I left the governor’s job. That is one of the

best things that you could do for the future of the Federal workforce.

Mr. SEPULVEDA. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report

that we have underway a major effort to develop a workforce planning model we are hoping to have available to agencies by the year

2001 and we are working on a prototype which is essentially an

automated system that will enable agencies to use that model to

identify the specific competencies they need on an agency-by-agency basis.

And again, we have been working with the CFOs and the information technology community in the Federal service, as well as the

acquisition community, the procurement people, to identify what

needs they have for training and competencies, not just current

needs but obviously needs in the near future. We have made a lot

of progress in those specific areas, so I am happy to report that we

have some efforts underway that I think are going to be very helpful to agencies in the near future.

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Disney.

Dr. DISNEY. If I could comment on that, I would like to reference

Senator Akaka’s comments earlier. As a former professor, I, too,

think you can never spend enough on education and training.

13

Though I cannot speak for the other agencies, I must go back to

an earlier point, which is that the Department of Defense has

eliminated 420,000 civilian positions in the past decade and is programmed to eliminate some 70,000 more. That means we have

fewer people and these people are charged with doing a mission

that gets more complex every day. That requires more investment

in their education and training than in the past, and that can be

accomplished both through increased dollars and through increased

flexibility.

Senator VOINOVICH. We had a hearing on the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, the emphasis of which was saving money and cutting employees. When you cut 70,000 employees,

it is like saying you are going to cut Medicare expenses 15 percent

each year. The issue is whether or not you have the resources to

get the job done, and it seems to me that ought to be the major

goal of the Department of Defense. What do you need in terms of

people in order to do the job? That ought to be the standard and

not we are going to get some high marks because we have fewer

government employees. Again, I know you have some really severe

problems in some serious areas, and if you could get that list together, it would be very helpful.

Dr. DISNEY. Yes, sir. We are devoting a great deal of time and

energy to our workforce planning and to finding new ways of investing in the people who are already there.

Senator VOINOVICH. I really think that you have two problems

here, attracting people into government and retention. I think

whether you retain or lose this 21 percent of employees that could

take early retirement is going to have a lot to do with the work environment. If they see an environment where they are not involved,

if they see an environment where there are no incentives, if they

have an environment where there is no training, then a lot of them

are going to say goodbye, and so I think that training is critical to

just keeping those people that we have on board.

Mr. Brostek.

Mr. BROSTEK. Well, first, I would like to agree with Mr. Sepulveda. I think that the correct amount of training funds will depend

upon a business case analysis that each agency must do for its

training needs.

I would also go back to your own opening statement, Mr. Chairman, where you noted how difficult it has been for you to find out

how much agencies are actually spending on training. We do not

have very good data to begin to make the assessment of whether

we have a shortfall. From the work that we did in preparation for

the hearing, we did have the consistent theme in the people that

we talked to in the agencies that they did not feel they did have

a sufficient amount of resources to do appropriate training.

One of the interesting twists on that was that they mentioned in

more than one case that they did not have enough depth in their

line staff so that they felt comfortable taking someone off of the

line, away from the work that they were doing on a daily basis, to

train them. They did not have somebody to backfill for the hole

that was created.

A couple of other things. This is somewhat inconsistent with the

difficulty, I guess, that you found in trying to determine how much

14

agencies are spending on training, but the Merit System Protection

Board reported in 1995 that agencies spent about 0.75 percent of

their total budgets on training and they contrasted that to about

10 percent of budgets being spent by high-performing private organizations on training. So if there is any merit to the figures that

MSPB had, there is a significant gap, or was at least in 1995, in

the training expenditures of the Federal Government versus highperforming companies.

Senator VOINOVICH. What was the number on the high-performing companies?

Mr. BROSTEK. About 10 percent of their budget, I believe, is what

MSPB reported. I do not know which companies they were referring to, but that was the contrast that they drew.

The last thing I would like to say on the point is that there may

be some room within agencies’ budgets to gain some efficiencies in

the spending of the current training dollars. We did a report last

year in the Department of Energy in which we observed that there

was a fair amount of duplication in the creation of the same kind

of training course in different locations throughout that Department and we suggested that some standardization of the courses

might save training dollars and free up some money that could be

reallocated to more important training needs.

Senator VOINOVICH. I know in the State Government, we had a

smorgasbord of training programs that could be accessed by all

State agencies, and rather than just have a training program for

one agency, we tried to identify some common things that were

needed in all agencies and give people the opportunity to take advantage of them.

Mr. Sepulveda, can you identify the amount of money that is

available to a Federal worker right now for training?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. Again, that is going to be very difficult to arrive

at because each individual agency head has a responsibility for determining what the training budget is for his or her department,

and since we do not get that information consistently, it would be

very difficult for us to even give you an estimate. The reality is,

as was mentioned in your statement, in many cases, agencies have

to make some hard budgetary decisions based on resources made

available to them, and in many cases, they end up changing some

of those priorities. So it is difficult to say. I am certainly not in a

position right now to provide you that information.

Senator VOINOVICH. Would it be good if, in terms of the budget

preparation, you had a line item for training and it was pit in the

open where people can see it? We have been getting information

back that agencies are hiding training money because they are

afraid that it is going to be reprogrammed or that Congress may

come in and zap it out. Could you set some standard and say that

X percent of the budget would be used for training so that there

is no hiding of it?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. Again, that is why the discussions we are having right now with OMB on making sure that the budgetary guidance that they give out to all agencies for fiscal year 2002 would

have the requirement that agencies identify up front what resources they need for devoting to their strategic goals.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka.

15

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sepulveda, this morning’s ‘‘Federal Diary’’ column noted that

71 percent of the career Senior Executive Service would be eligible

for retirement in the year 2005. I was, therefore, interested in your

testimony which focused in part on the need to train and develop

the SES corps. Could you be more specific on how the government

would help future SES members work in the private sector?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. You mean that proposal to have the exchange

that we are working on. We feel that Federal executives would benefit greatly from an opportunity to serve, or do a rotational assignment, if you will, in the private sector as they are able to do now

either within their agency or outside of their agency, and that is

a proposal that we are developing, and hopefully with the approval

of OMB, we can move that forward.

But that is not the only thing that we have in our supply of tools

to address the succession issue that you are mentioning. As I mentioned before, we have been working with agencies to develop candidate development programs which would allow them to identify

executives who have the potential to enter the Senior Executive

Service and put them through a year-long or in some cases 2-yearlong training program so they will be certified at the end of that

program to enter the SES, to compete for SES positions.

The other thing we do at OPM is that we are the agency that

oversees our Federal Executive Institute, which is the training, it

is the Harvard, if you will, of the Senior Executive Service for Federal executives, and we have two Management Development Centers. We train approximately 8,000 executives and managers each

and every year at those two Management Development Centers

and at the FEI.

In addition, we have been working with Federal agencies across

the Federal Government, helping them to focus on their succession

issues, in other words, helping them to develop internal programs

to identify the leadership they will need to have in place to be

ready to walk into the job as other executives begin to retire. So

that has been part of our strategy for the last several years and

we are hoping that one of the things that we could also do, as I

mentioned before, is have that proposal which will allow us to also

have opportunities for these executives to go into the private sector

and come back to the government with those skills.

Senator AKAKA. I share with you your opinion about government

human resources. In your testimony, you said the Federal workforce is an asset and that we must nurture their potential and interests and their development so that we may have better individuals and organizational performances. I want you to know that I

fully support providing cutting-edge development and training opportunities, as we just talked about with the Senior Executive

Service. I know that OPM works closely with all agencies in training programs; however, what percentage of training budgets are

generally spent on executive and management training versus line

employee training?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. I think that is going to be difficult for me to be

able to answer because, again, agencies will determine on an individual basis the number of executives or potential executives that

need to be trained, the kind of training. They will determine

16

whether they send their executives to our Federal Executive Institute or our Management Development Centers or whether they

send them to other institutions in the private sector or in the university arena to get their training.

Senator AKAKA. How will agencies integrate their training activities into their performance reports and who is providing technical

guidance in these efforts?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. As I mentioned earlier, Senator, we have been

working with OMB to set up that system, to set up that structure

that will allow the agencies to identify what their needs are, identify their training strategies, and plug that into the budgetary process and plug that into their performance reports, as well. We are

looking forward to having that out through the OMB Circular A–

11 fairly soon, and that will identify specifically the process.

Senator AKAKA. How much cross-training is done by agencies

that are located within the same geographical region?

Mr. SEPULVEDA. I think a lot of that is done, actually. We have

in our agency right now a member of the Department of Labor

Candidate Development Program and he is doing a rotation in our

agency for several months and then he will go off to another agency. That happens all the time. So I think that is part of the development process. We want to encourage agencies to send their

potential executives to other agencies to get that broad-based experience.

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Disney, you alluded to down sizing which, of

course, DOD has done. You said in your testimony that jobs remaining in DOD require more advanced education and training

from those of the past. We know that the whole structure of DOD

is changing, so the job of education and training, of course, is priority for you.

Dr. Disney, I was very interested in your explanation of the differences between military personnel who enter at a low level and

work up the system and the civilian Federal workforce who must

have demonstrated skills, knowledge, and/or ability to enter a specific job classification. It appears that DOD is working to invest in

its civilian population. What has been the most promising training

and development initiative, in your opinion?

Dr. DISNEY. I believe that is clearly the establishment of

DLAMP, our Defense Leadership and Management Program, because that is the first comprehensive Department-wide effort to

prepare people for key leadership positions, and these are at the

14, 15, and SES levels. It is a comprehensive multi-year effort, recognizing that people need advanced technical skills; they need experience; they need graduate education. No one thing by itself is

sufficient.

It also recognizes that we can no longer afford to have people in

the very narrow stovepipes they were before. People in acquisition

need to know about labor relations. People in personnel need to

know how to read budgets. As we have fewer and fewer employees,

the ones we have must be able to have a broader perspective and

be able to understand more things than in the past, and that is

why DLAMP is, we think, a model for the rest of government, and,

in fact, it is becoming a model for the defense ministries in other

countries, as well.

17

1The prepared statements of Ms. Sung, Mr. Harnage, Mr. Mosgaller, and Ms. Lee appears

in the Appendix on pages 61 thru 85 respectively.

Senator AKAKA. Now that you have mentioned the model, could

this model be utilized by OPM in developing similar training programs for non-defense Federal workers?

Dr. DISNEY. Well, certainly the concept of combining the rotational assignments and the advanced education could be used anywhere.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka, I have to interrupt. I am so

embarrassed. I am new to this place, and maybe you are familiar

with this. We have just received a call from the cloak room informing us that we have to adjourn this hearing no later than 11 o’clock

under Rule 22. Committees or Subcommittees need unanimous consent to meet 2 hours after we go into session. As you know, Senator, there is usually no problem, but today your party made a

blanket objection, meaning that no Committee or Subcommittee

may meet after 11 o’clock.

So we have to adjourn now or else a point of order can be raised

against anything on the floor. This is new to me, but are you familiar with this rule, Senator?

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We follow

the policies and the rules. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. So I am really embarrassed that we have to

adjourn this hearing. I want to say to the witnesses that have

come, some from out of State, that I apologize for your not having

an opportunity to testify today. I had looked forward to asking

more questions of our first panel here and hearing from the second

panel.

For whatever it is worth, for those that did not testify today, I

promise you that I will personally read your testimony. I cannot

guarantee that at every hearing, because as you can well imagine,

there is a lot of testimony that comes in. But in this particular

case, I want you to know that because I have not had the chance

to hear you, I will read your testimony and it will be in the record.

We will fold it into the recommendations that we are going to make

on how to improve training, which is so very important to the future of our Federal workforce.1

We again thank the witnesses.

The Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(19)

A P P E N D I X

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

Æ