a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce, and the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

September 2005 DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND 

SECURITY

Strategic Management 

of Training Important 

for Successful 

Transformation

GAO-05-888
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-888.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact George Stalcup 

at (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-888, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

U.S. Senate 

September 2005

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Strategic Management of Training 

Important for Successful Transformation 

DHS has taken several positive steps toward establishing an effective 

departmentwide approach to training, yet significant challenges remain. 

Progress made in addressing departmentwide training issues, but 

efforts are still in the early stages and face several challenges. 

Actions taken by DHS include issuing its first training strategic plan in July 

2005, establishing training councils and groups to increase communication 

across components, and directly providing training for specific 

departmentwide needs. However, several challenges may impede DHS from 

achieving its departmental training goals. First, the sharing of training 

information across components is made more difficult by the lack of 

common or compatible information management systems and a commonly 

understood training terminology. Second, authority and accountability 

relationships between the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and 

organizational components are not sufficiently clear. Third, DHS’s planning 

may be insufficiently detailed to ensure effective and coordinated 

implementation of departmentwide training efforts. Finally, according to 

training officials, DHS lacks resources needed to implement its departmental 

training strategy. 

Examples of planning and evaluation of training demonstrate some 

elements of strategic practice. Specific training practices at both the 

component and departmental levels may provide useful models or insights to 

help others in DHS adopt a more strategic approach to training. We found 

that some components of DHS apply these practices, while others do not. 

For example, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aligns training priorities 

with strategic goals through planning and budgeting processes. In the area of 

evaluation, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center obtains feedback 

from both the trainee and the trainee’s job supervisor to inform training 

program designers in order to make improvements to the program 

curriculum. 

Training has been used to help DHS’s workforce as it undergoes 

transformation and cultural change. The creation of DHS from different 

legacy organizations, each with its own distinct culture, has resulted in 

significant cultural and transformation challenges for the department. At the 

departmental level, one of the ways DHS is addressing these challenges is by 

encouraging the transformation to a shared performance-based culture 

through the implementation of its new human capital management system, 

MAXHR. DHS considers training to be critical to effectively implementing this 

initiative and defining its culture. Toward that end, the department is 

providing a wide range of training, including programs targeted to 

executives, managers, and supervisors. For example, at the component level, 

CBP has developed cross-training to equip employees with the knowledge 

needed to integrate inspection functions once carried out by three different 

types of inspectors at three separate agencies.

Training can play a key role in 

helping the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) 

successfully address the challenge 

of transformation and cultural 

change and help ensure that its 

workforce possesses the 

knowledge and skills needed to 

effectively respond to current and 

future threats. This report 

discusses (1) how DHS is 

addressing or planning to address 

departmentwide training and the 

related challenges it is 

encountering; (2) examples of how 

DHS training practices, specifically 

those related to planning and 

evaluation, reflect strategic 

practices; and (3) examples of how 

DHS uses training to foster 

transformation and cultural 

change. 

What GAO Recommends

We recommend that the Secretary 

of Homeland Security (1) adopt 

additional good planning practices, 

specifically, creating a clearer 

crosswalk between training goals 

and DHS’s organizational and 

human capital strategic goals and 

developing appropriate 

performance measures and targets; 

(2) specify authority/ 

accountability relationships 

between CHCO and components on 

training; (3) ensure the department 

and components develop detailed 

training implementation plans; and 

(4) when setting funding priorities, 

give appropriate attention to 

supporting training councils and 

groups. DHS generally agreed with 

the report’s recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 5 

DHS Has Made Progress in Addressing Departmentwide Training 

Issues, but Challenges May Impede Its Efforts 11 

DHS’s Approach to Planning and Evaluation of Training 

Demonstrates Some Elements of Strategic Practice, but Is Still 

Evolving 28 

DHS Has Used Training in an Effort to Help Its Workforce as the 

Department Undergoes Transformation and Cultural Change 35 

Conclusions 37 

Recommendations for Executive Action 38 

Agency Comments 38 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 40 

Appendix II “One Face at the Border” Training at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection 43 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 45 

Table 

Table 1: Responsibilities and Selected Training Characteristics of 

DHS Components Included in Our Review 7 

Figures 

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure 10 

Figure 2: Departmental Training Councils and Subgroups at DHS 17 

Figure 3: Timeline for MAXHR Training Scheduled Through the End 

of 2005 21 

Figure 4: Levels of Training Evaluation 31 

Figure 5: DHS Components Included in Our Review 41 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Abbrevations 

ADL Advanced Distributed Learning 

ADLG Advanced Distributed Learning Group 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CHCO Chief Human Capital Officer 

CIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

FTE full-time equivalent 

HPT Human Performance Technology 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

LTDG Leadership Training and Development Group 

NTEP National Training Evaluation Program 

SES Senior Executive Service 

TLC Training Leaders Council 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

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

United States. It 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-05-888 Training at DHS 

September 23, 2005 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Addressing an organization’s culture—that is, its underlying assumptions, 

beliefs, values, attitudes, and expectations—is at the heart of any serious 

organizational transformation or change management initiative. As the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strives to protect the nation from 

terrorism, it faces significant challenges in transforming from 22 separate 

agencies and programs to a single coordinated department, requiring the 

integration of approximately 180,000 employees as well as multiple 

management systems and processes. In recognition of these challenges, 

we have designated the implementation and transformation of the 

department as high risk.1

Training and development can play a key role in helping DHS successfully 

address the challenge of transformation and cultural change and help 

ensure that its workforce possesses the knowledge, skills, and 

competencies needed to effectively respond to current and future threats.2

In addition, a strategic approach to the management of training can help to 

effectively target limited resources and further the achievement of its 

organizational goals. To this end, our framework for assessing training 

 1

 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005). 

2

 In previous GAO reports we have defined “training” as making available to employees 

planned and coordinated educational programs of instruction in professional, technical, or 

other fields that are or will be related to their job responsibilities. Similarly, we have 

defined “development” to generally include aspects of training, as well as structured on-thejob learning experiences (such as coaching, mentoring, or rotational assignments), and 

education. For the purposes of this report, “training” will be used as a shorter substitute for 

“training and development.” 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

management provides a way for DHS to recognize and develop such an 

approach.3

You asked us to examine how DHS, as a federal agency undergoing 

transformation, uses training to help achieve its organizational goals. In 

response to your request, this report discusses (1) how DHS is addressing 

or planning to address departmentwide training and the related challenges 

it is encountering; (2) examples of how DHS training practices, specifically 

those related to planning and evaluation, reflect strategic practices; and 

(3) examples of how DHS uses training to foster transformation and 

cultural change. 

To achieve our objectives, we reviewed internal training at both the 

departmental and component levels, focusing on the systems and 

processes in place to manage, plan, and evaluate training for DHS’s 

workforce. To this end, we analyzed training, management, and planning 

documents and interviewed numerous officials responsible for training 

issues in the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO office) and 

at six organizational components collectively responsible for training 95 

percent of the DHS workforce. To determine whether DHS used a strategic 

approach in managing, planning, and evaluating its training activities, we 

drew on our previous work regarding strategic planning and effective 

management practices, as well as criteria contained in our guide for 

assessing strategic training and development efforts in the federal 

government. We recognize that DHS provides a significant amount of 

training to external audiences, such as state and local governments; 

however, given the nature of your request and interest in examples of how 

DHS is using training to foster its organizational transformation, we did 

not include training intended for audiences external to DHS within the 

scope of our review. For more information on our scope and methodology, 

see appendix I. 

We conducted our work from November 2004 through July 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

DHS has made progress in addressing departmentwide training issues, but 

these efforts are still in the early stages and challenges may impede these 

 3

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

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

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

efforts. Thus far, DHS has taken several steps toward establishing a 

departmentwide approach to training, including the following: 

• DHS has issued its first training strategic plan providing a strategic vision 

for departmental training. It used a collaborative and inclusive process to 

develop the plan, consulting with component training leaders and others. 

• It also has established training councils and groups with the goal of 

increasing communication across components and fostering greater 

collaboration and coordination. 

• Finally, it has provided training targeted to address specific 

departmentwide needs. Examples of areas where DHS has directly 

provided or supported training on the departmental level include 

(1) implementation of MAXHR, DHS’s new human capital management 

system;4

 (2) leadership development; and (3) civil rights and liberties. 

However, we identified four challenges that may impede the department 

from achieving departmental training goals. First, the sharing of training 

information across components is hampered by the lack of a common or 

compatible information management infrastructure and the absence of a 

commonly understood terminology. Officials told us that the lack of 

compatible information technology systems complicated their efforts to 

make the most efficient use of training resources across components. 

Second, authority and accountability relationships between the CHCO 

office and the organizational components are not sufficiently clear. A clear 

and agreed-upon understanding of the specific responsibilities and 

authorities of the key organizations involved in training should 

significantly improve DHS’s ability to effectively implement its training 

strategies. The department recognizes this need to clarify the 

responsibilities and authorities of the CHCO office and the components 

and has addressed this need in its training strategic plan. Third, DHS’s 

planning may be insufficiently detailed to ensure effective and coordinated 

implementation of departmentwide training efforts. Because they share 

authority for training, the department and the components need to develop 

detailed implementation plans to help ensure that departmentwide 

training initiatives are coordinated and effectively implemented. Fourth, 

according to training officials, DHS lacks resources needed to implement 

its departmental training strategy. 

 4

 According to DHS, the name MAXHR was chosen to convey the intent of the new system to 

foster “maximizing results, rewarding excellence.” MAXHR covers key human capital areas, 

including pay, performance management, classification, labor relations, adverse actions, 

and employee appeals. 
Page 4 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

While still evolving, some of DHS’s training practices at both the 

component and department levels demonstrate strategic elements in the 

areas of planning and evaluation and may provide useful models or 

insights to help others in DHS adopt a more strategic approach to training. 

We have reported previously that as part of the planning process, agencies 

demonstrating a strategic approach to training align their training efforts 

with overall organizational strategic priorities; some components of DHS 

apply these practices, while others do not. U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), for example, employs practices intended to align 

training priorities with strategic goals through planning and budgeting 

processes. The U.S. Coast Guard also demonstrates a strategic approach 

by using a process for determining whether training is the appropriate 

intervention to address a specific performance problem. 

With respect to evaluation, we have reported that agencies demonstrating 

a strategic approach to training employ a variety of practices, such as 

systematically evaluating training, actively incorporating feedback during 

training design, and obtaining feedback from multiple perspectives. 

Several components and programs we examined at DHS demonstrate 

these practices, while others do not. For example, the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) obtains feedback from both the 

trainee and the trainee’s job supervisor to inform training program 

designers making improvements to the curriculum. CBP and the CHCO 

office also use various strategies to evaluate training programs and take 

appropriate actions. 

DHS also has used training to help foster transformation and cultural 

change as the department moves from multiple distinct organizational 

cultures to a new culture that endeavors to be increasingly integrated and 

performance focused. This is not an easy process, and the creation of DHS 

from 22 different agencies and programs has resulted in considerable 

cultural and transformation challenges. At the department level, DHS has 

addressed these challenges by encouraging the transformation to a shared 

performance-based culture through the adoption of a new human capital 

management system, known as MAXHR. As an essential part of 

implementing this initiative, DHS developed targeted training for 

executives, managers, and supervisors, providing these groups with the 

tools and information needed to champion the benefits of a performancebased culture and successfully implement MAXHR in their components. In 

another example, this time at the component level, in order to improve 

coordination and communication across inspection functions and enhance 

flexibility of the workforce, CBP created the new positions of CBP officer 

and CBP agriculture specialist. Cross-training of employees in these new 
Page 5 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

positions helped CBP to integrate the inspection functions of three former 

agencies. In addition, CBP designed and piloted a training module that 

specifically targeted how supervisors could more effectively understand 

the value and perspective of staff coming from legacy organizational 

cultures. 

To help DHS further establish and implement an effective and strategic 

approach to departmental training, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security take the following actions: (1) adopt additional good 

strategic planning and management practices to enhance the department’s 

training strategic plan by creating a clearer crosswalk between specific 

training goals and objectives and DHS’s organizational and human capital 

strategic goals and developing appropriate performance measures and 

targets; (2) clearly specify authority and accountability relationships 

between the CHCO office and organizational components regarding 

training, as a first step toward addressing issues DHS has identified for 

fiscal year 2006; (3) ensure that the department and component 

organizations develop detailed implementation plans and related 

processes for training initiatives; and (4) when setting funding priorities, 

give appropriate attention to providing resources to support training 

councils and groups to further DHS’s capacity to achieve its 

departmentwide training goals. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security 

for comment. DHS generally agreed with our recommendations. The 

department provided technical comments that we incorporated where 

appropriate. DHS’s written response is reprinted in appendix III. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS, bringing together 22 

agencies and programs responsible for important aspects of homeland 

security.5

 The intent behind the creation of a single department was to 

improve coordination, communication, and information sharing among 

these previously separate entities, thereby increasing their effectiveness in 

protecting the nation’s security. Each of these organizations brought with 

it the capacity and expertise to provide training for its particular aspect of 

homeland security. For example, in several cases such as the Coast Guard 

and FLETC, this training capacity, as well as the management systems 

supporting it was transferred intact with the creation of the new 

 5

 Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

department. In other cases, such as CBP and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), the training functions of legacy organizations 

were merged. Table 1 presents information on selected training 

characteristics of components in our review, including the origin of each 

component’s training function. In addition, the Act led to the creation of 

the CHCO position in DHS responsible for, among other human capital 

topics, oversight and planning of the training of employees.6

 The CHCO, 

who reports directly to the department’s Under Secretary for Management, 

has primary responsibility for defining and developing the department’s 

role regarding training. Figure 1 depicts these positions as well as the 

department’s major components in the context of DHS’s overall 

organizational structure. 

Training both new and current staff to fill new roles and work in different 

ways will play a crucial part in the ability of federal departments and 

agencies, such as DHS, as they work to successfully transform their 

organizations. In 2004, we issued an assessment guide that introduces a 

framework for evaluating the management of training in the federal 

government.7

 As presented in our guide, the training process can be 

segmented into four broad, interrelated phases: (1) planning/front-end 

analysis, (2) design/development, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation. 

For each of these phases, we summarize key attributes of effective training 

programs and offer related issues and questions. Using this framework, 

this report identifies selected strategic training practices, with a focus on 

the planning and evaluation phases, that may offer an opportunity for 

others in DHS to build on experiences and practices discussed below. 

 6

 This section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, also known as the Chief Human 

Capital Officers Act of 2002, led to the creation of chief human capital officers in each 

federal department. Pub. L. No. 107-296, §§ 1301-1305 (Nov. 25, 2002). 

7 GAO-04-546G. 
Page 7 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Table 1: Responsibilities and Selected Training Characteristics of DHS Components Included in Our Review 

 

U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

(CIS) 

10,207 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Administer immigration and naturalization adjudication functions, including immigrant visa petitions, 

naturalization petitions, and asylum and refugee applications 

• Establish and administer policies for immigrant services and benefits 

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function was transferred from former Immigration and Naturalization Service with the 

exception of law enforcement and soft skills training 

• Conducts extensive field training through district offices and service centers 

• Operates CIS Academy at FLETC site in Glynco, GA, for basic training of new employees 

• Provides refresher training for adjudicators at field sites 

• Supervisory training provided by ICE’s Leadership Development Center in Dallas, TX, through a 

shared services agreement between CIS, ICE, and CBP 

U.S. Coast Guard 

46,847 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Protect the public, environment, and U.S. economic interests in nation’s ports, waterways, coasts, and 

international waters 

• Specific responsibilities include: Maritime safety (e.g., search and rescue), maritime mobility (e.g., 

aids to navigation and waterways management), protection of natural resources, maritime security 

(e.g., drug interdiction), and national defense 

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function transferred as a whole along with the rest of the Coast Guard from Department of 

Transportation 

• Operates multiple training programs for (1) indoctrination for new employees, (2) apprenticeship after 

indoctrination course is completed, and (3) specialized skills (e.g., law enforcement inspections) 

• Operates special leadership training program at Leadership Development Center, New London, CT 

• Uses some Department of Defense training courses for specialized skills 

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) 

40,761 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Protect U.S. borders from terrorism, at and between official ports of entry, and foster legitimate trade 

and travel 

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function structure and processes largely carried over from former U.S. Customs organization 

• Basic CBP officer training provided at CBP Academy at FLETC site in Glynco, GA, and basic CBP 

agricultural specialist training at CBP Academy at U.S. Department of Agriculture-Professional 

Development Center in Frederick, MD 

• Provides basic Border Patrol training at Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, NM 

• Provides extensive field training at ports throughout the United States 

• Supervisory training provided at ICE’s Leadership Development Center in Dallas, TX, through a 

shared services agreement between CIS, ICE, and CBP 
Page 8 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

 

Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) 

959 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Train and prepare law enforcement professionals across government 

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function transferred as a whole from Department of the Treasury with formation of DHS 

• Consolidates law enforcement training at five FLETC academies for multiple DHS components 

• FLETC budget covers most of the basic training provided to DHS components; auxiliary costs, such 

as room and board, are reimbursed by components 

U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) 

14,950 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Prevent acts of terrorism by targeting people, money, and materials that support terrorist and criminal 

activities focusing on the nation’s border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security 

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function partly carried over from legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service and legacy 

Customs Inspections and includes a separate training organization for the Federal Protective Service 

• Federal Protective Service trains its uniformed officers at FLETC site in Glynco, GA, and ICE 

Academy is located at same FLETC site 

• ICE’s Leadership Development Center in Dallas, TX, provides supervisor and manager training for 

multiple DHS components 

U.S. Secret Service 

6,526 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Protect the President and other designated personnel 

• Protect the country’s currency and financial infrastructure 

• Provide security for designated national events 

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function transferred as a whole along with the rest of the Secret Service from Department of 

the Treasury 

• Trains both special agents and uniformed law enforcement officers with most instruction taking place 

at Rowley Training Center in Beltsville, MD 

• Basic training for new employees takes place at FLETC site in Glynco, GA 

Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) 

52,467 FTEs 

Overview of component responsibilities 

• Protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce

Selected characteristics of training 

• Training function greatly expanded after transfer from Department of Transportation with formation of 

DHS; separate training organization in place for the Federal Air Marshal Service, which was recently 

transferred as a result of DHS’s Second Stage Review 

• Some training delivered through TSA headquarters office in Arlington, VA, which also oversees 

contracted training activities through its quality assurance unit 

• Most training delivered in field (airport) sites through contractors and approved instructors 

• Operates an academy in Artesia, NM, and an academy at the FLETC site in Glynco, GA 

• Federal Air Marshal Service trains new hires at an initial program in Artesia, NM, and then they 

receive specialized training in Atlantic City, NJ; Federal Air Marshal Service field offices also conduct 

ongoing training 

Sources: GAO presentation of DHS information and the President’s Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. 

Note: Figures showing full-time equivalents (FTE) for components reflect FTEs listed under “current 

services” from the President’s Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. 
Page 9 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

The results of a governmentwide survey conducted by the Office of 

Personnel Management in 2004 on human capital practices and employee 

attitudes suggest that efforts to identify and build upon examples of good 

training practice within DHS may be particularly relevant.8

 For each of the 

eight questions in the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey that focused on 

training related topics, the percentage of DHS respondents providing 

positive responses (typically the top two options on a five-point scale) was 

lower than the governmentwide average. In fact, the DHS response ranged 

from 5 to 20 percentage points lower than the governmentwide average for 

the same questions. For example, 54 percent of respondents at DHS 

indicated that they received the training they needed in order to perform 

their jobs, compared to 60 percent governmentwide. Half (50 percent) of 

DHS respondents said that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with 

the training they received for their present jobs, as opposed to 55 percent 

that expressed these levels of satisfaction governmentwide. The largest 

difference involved having electronic access to learning and training 

programs, where 51 percent of DHS respondents responded positively, 

compared to 71 percent governmentwide. A DHS official told us that the 

department is aware of the challenges reflected in these data and is 

currently exploring options with the Office of Personnel Management to 

conduct further analysis. The aim of this work would be to identify areas 

where DHS might target additional attention as well as provide a baseline 

for future attitude measures. 

 8

 According to the Office of Personnel Management, both the survey’s governmentwide 

findings and DHS-specific findings are generalizable to their respective populations. For 

additional findings from the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey on these and other 

training and non-training-related questions, see www.fhcs2004.opm.gov. 
Page 10 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure 

Note: This organization chart shows the expected end state resulting from a reorganization 

announced by the department in July 2005 at the conclusion of DHS’s Second Stage Review 

process. 

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

Chief 

of Staff

Executive

Secretary

Military

Liaison

Under 

Secretary for 

Management

Under 

Secretary for 

Science and 

Technology

Chief 

Financial 

Officer

Chief Human 

Capital Officer

Chief Information 

Officer

Chief Procurement 

Officer

Under 

Secretary 

for Policy

Assistant 

Secretary 

Office of 

Intelligence 

and Analysis

Under 

Secretary for 

Preparedness

Federal Law 

Enforcement 

Training 

Center

Domestic 

Nuclear 

Detection 

Office

Screening 

Coordination 

Office

Labor 

Relations 

Board

General 

Counsel

Assistant 

Secretary 

Congressional 

and 

Intergovernmental 

Affairs

Assistant 

Secretary 

Public Affairs

Inspector 

General

Director of 

Counter 

Narcotics

Ombudsman, 

U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration 

Services

Chief Privacy 

Officer

Director

Civil 

Rights/Civil 

Liberties

Director 

U.S. 

Citizenship

and 

Immigration 

Services

Commissioner 

U.S. 

Immigration 

and Customs 

Enforcement

Director

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency

Director 

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

Commissioner 

U.S. Customs 

and Border 

Protection

Director 

U.S. Secret 

Service

Commandant

U.S. Coast 

Guard

Director of 

Operations 

Coordination

Source: GAO presentation of DHS information.
Page 11 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

DHS has made progress in addressing departmentwide training issues and 

these efforts reflect some of the elements of a strategic approach toward 

training as described in our previous work.9

 Most training-related activities 

at DHS—such as planning, delivery, and evaluation—primarily take place 

at the component level and relate to mission issues. Therefore, any 

successful approach regarding departmentwide training issues will require 

the concerted and coordinated efforts of multiple components within DHS 

as well as the ability of the CHCO to effectively lead a network of different 

training organizations. The department’s current efforts, although 

promising, are still in the early stages and they face significant challenges. 

Unless these challenges are successfully addressed they may impede 

DHS’s ability to achieve its departmentwide training goals. 

DHS recently developed a coordinated departmental training strategy that 

supports broader human capital and organizational goals and objectives. 

We have previously reported that effective organizations establish clear 

goals with an authority structure able to carry out strategies and tactics, 

that is, the day-to-day activities needed to support the organization’s vision 

and mission. By so doing, a well-designed training function can be directly 

linked to the organization’s strategic goals and help to ensure that the 

skills and competencies of its workforce enable the organization to 

perform its mission effectively. 

DHS’s department-level training strategy is presented in its human capital 

and training strategic plans. Issued in October 2004, its human capital 

strategic plan includes selected training strategies, such as developing a 

leadership curriculum to ensure consistency of organizational values 

across the department and using training to support the implementation of 

the new DHS human capital management system, MAXHR. In July 2005, 

DHS issued its first departmental training plan, Department of Homeland 

Security Learning and Development Strategic Plan, which provides a 

strategic vision for departmentwide training. This plan is a significant and 

positive step toward addressing departmentwide training challenges. The 

plan identifies four short-term goals for fiscal year 2006 and one long-term 

goal for fiscal years 2006 through 2010. Among the short-term goals are 

such tasks as defining the scope of training activities and improving the 

governance process between the CHCO office and individual 

organizational components, supporting the rollout of MAXHR, 

 9 GAO-04-546G. 

DHS Has Made 

Progress in 

Addressing 

Departmentwide 

Training Issues, but 

Challenges May 

Impede Its Efforts 

DHS Recently Developed a 

Departmental Training 

Strategy 
Page 12 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

identifying/implementing best practices, and addressing specific concerns 

regarding DHS’s training facilities and advanced distributed learning 

studies. The plan also articulates a long-term goal for DHS to “become a 

recognized world-class learning organization where managers and 

supervisors effectively lead people.” 

Each of these goals is followed by supporting strategies and tactics. For 

example, to achieve its goal of ensuring the best use of training resources 

through the identification and implementation of best practices, the plan 

identifies specific strategies, one of which is to improve the awareness of 

ongoing DHS training activities among organizational components. This 

strategy is, in turn, supported by still more specific tactics such as 

developing a site on the DHS Interactive system to facilitate the sharing of 

information across the training community. 

More significant than the fact that DHS issued a training strategic plan 

document is the fact that DHS followed an inclusive and collaborative 

process while developing it. We have previously reported that for highperforming, results-oriented organizations, a strategic plan is not simply a 

paper-driven exercise or onetime event, but rather the result of a dynamic 

and inclusive process wherein key stakeholders are consulted and 

involved in the identification of priorities and the formation of strategies.10

When creating its plan, DHS consulted training leaders at components 

throughout the department, in addition to others, to help develop and 

review its content. Several training leaders we spoke with thought highly 

of this process and the extent to which it provided them opportunities to 

contribute and comment on the draft plan. 

DHS has made considerable progress in addressing departmentwide 

training issues through the development of its first training strategic plan. 

However, there are areas where future efforts can be improved. 

Linkage to DHS organizational and human capital strategic plans. 

Our past work on strategic planning and management practices shows that 

effective strategic plans describe the alignment between an agency’s longterm goals and objectives and the specific strategies planned to achieve 

them. Clearly linking training tactics with particular organizational 

objectives creates a direct line of sight that can both facilitate the ability of 

 10 GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 
Page 13 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

staff to work toward mission goals and enable stakeholders to provide 

meaningful oversight. In the introduction to the DHS training strategic 

plan, the department’s CHCO highlights the value of this practice stating 

that “the key purpose of [the] plan is to align our education, training and 

professional development efforts with the President’s Management 

Agenda and the Department’s vision, mission, core values and strategic 

plan.” 

The DHS training strategic plan contains examples of goals, strategies, and 

tactics that align with and support goals found in the department’s human 

capital and organizational strategic plans; however, these linkages are 

never actually identified or discussed in the plan itself. For example, the 

DHS training strategic plan contains a goal and several tactics related to 

MAXHR training. These, in turn, support a MAXHR goal and strategy in the 

department’s human capital strategic plan as well as the “organizational 

excellence” goal of the DHS strategic plan. However, the training strategic 

plan does not show these linkages. Identifying such linkages, either in the 

training plan itself or in an appendix, would more clearly communicate to 

both internal and external stakeholders the connections and justifications 

for specific training goals, strategies, and tactics. 

DHS’s own human capital strategic plan provides an illustration of one 

way to communicate linkages between goals and strategies contained in 

the plan and the broader organizational goals they are intended to support. 

For example, in an appendix, the DHS human capital strategic plan 

contains a matrix that directly links strategies, such as developing a new 

Senior Executive Service (SES) performance management system, with 

specific objectives contained in the DHS strategic plan as well as the 

President’s Management Agenda human capital standards for success. 

Usefulness of performance measures. We have previously reported 

several key characteristics of effective strategic and management plans, 

including the need for performance measures.11 Appropriate performance 

measures along with accompanying targets are important tools to enable 

internal and external stakeholders to effectively track the progress the 

department is making toward achieving its training goals and objectives. 

To this end, organizations may use a variety of performance measures—

 11 GAO, Managing for Results: Next Steps to Improve the Federal Government’s 

Management and Performance, GAO-02-439T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2002). 
Page 14 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

output, efficiency, customer service, quality, and outcome—each of which 

focuses on a different aspect of performance. 

The DHS training strategic plan contains few specific performance 

measures for its goals or strategies and all of these are output measures. 

For example, the plan makes use of output measures in its requirement 

that certain actions, such as the development of a new management 

directive or the chartering of a team, be completed by the end of fiscal 

year 2006, and in establishing a deadline for when reports need to be 

completed in order to be included in the 2007 plan. In contrast to output 

measures like these, which gauge the level of activity or effort by 

measuring whether a particular thing is produced or service performed, 

other types of measures, such as measures of customer satisfaction or 

program outcomes, focus on the impact or results of activities. By 

appropriately broadening the mix of measures it uses and more clearly 

identifying targets against which DHS can assess its performance, DHS 

can improve the usefulness of its plan. After we completed our audit work, 

DHS training officials informed us that they decided to delay the 

development of performance measures until the rollout of the plan, when 

they could be developed by individual teams, as needed. They 

subsequently informed us that these teams will be held accountable to 

establish further performance measures that are outcome based and 

results oriented. 

DHS’s human capital strategic plan again provides an illustration of how 

the department’s training strategic plan might begin to work toward the 

inclusion of different types of performance measures. For example, 

accompanying the strategy that DHS assess the feasibility of establishing a 

21st Century Leadership Training and Development Institute, the plan 

identifies two performance measures—customer satisfaction and cost of 

delivery—along with specific targets for each. For the customer 

satisfaction measure, the plan establishes a target of 4.5 on a scale from 1 

to 5. The plan also includes specific tactics to achieve the strategy, such as 

developing and obtaining cross-organizational support, developing 

measures and methodologies for leadership training, and implementing a 

learning management system, along with key milestone dates for 

completing them. 

The department may benefit from considering the experiences of leading 

organizations regarding the development of results-oriented performance 

measurement. In general, results-oriented organizations we have studied 

that were successful in measuring their performance developed measures 

that were 
Page 15 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

• tied to program goals and demonstrated the degree to which the desired 

results were achieved, 

• limited to the vital few that were considered essential to producing data 

for decision making, 

• responsive to multiple priorities, and 

• responsibility linked to establish accountability for results.12

Similar to the consultative process DHS followed when developing the 

goals and strategies contained in its training strategic plan, decisions 

concerning the selection of an appropriate set of performance measures 

should also be based on input from key stakeholders to determine what is 

important to them when assessing the department’s performance 

regarding training. Clear and appropriate performance measures, 

developed in this way, can also provide DHS with valuable information, 

especially significant in the current fiscal environment, when it seeks to 

justify requests for resources from Congress. 

Under the overall direction of the CHCO office, DHS has established a 

structure of training councils and groups that cover a wide range of issues 

and include representatives from each organizational component within 

DHS. The department is in the process of using these bodies to facilitate 

communication and the sharing of information within its diverse training 

community. In some instances, these councils and groups foster greater 

collaboration and coordination on training policies, programs, and the 

sharing of training opportunities. We have previously reported that 

agencies with a strategic approach to training recognize the importance of 

having training officials and other human capital professionals work in 

partnership with other agency leaders and stakeholders on training 

efforts.13

The Training Leaders Council (TLC) plays a vital role in DHS’s efforts to 

foster communication and interchange among the department’s various 

training communities. This council consists of senior training leaders from 

each of the department’s components as well as representatives from 

several department-level headquarters staff and support organizations 

 12 GAO/GGD-96-118. 

13 GAO-04-546G. 

Training Councils and 

Groups Created by DHS 

Increase Communication 

across Components 
Page 16 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

with an interest in training-related issues.14 Started in October 2004 and 

formally chartered by the CHCO in March 2005, the TLC’s mission is to 

establish and sustain a collaborative community with the aim of promoting 

high-quality training, education, and development throughout DHS. To this 

end, it functions as a convener of training leaders from throughout the 

department and provides an overarching framework for several 

preexisting training groups and councils that were reestablished as 

standing committees of the TLC. Membership of the TLC consists of senior 

training leaders from each DHS component. In addition, most of these 

leaders as well as other training staff serve on one or more of its 

subgroups. See figure 2 for descriptions of the TLC and each of its 

subgroups. 

 14 The TLC includes representatives from the following entities: CBP, CIS, FLETC, ICE, 

TSA, Emergency Preparedness and Response/Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Science and Technology, the Coast 

Guard, the Secret Service, and US-VISIT. The TLC also includes representatives from the 

following DHS department level organizations: CHCO office, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Office of the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel, Office 

of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Office of Counter Narcotics, and Office of State and 

Local Coordination and Preparedness/Center for Domestic Preparedness. 
Page 17 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Figure 2: Departmental Training Councils and Subgroups at DHS 

One key function of the TLC and these other training groups is to serve as 

a “community of practice” wherein officials can discuss common training 

challenges and share knowledge and best practices. For example, the 

Training Evaluation and Quality Assurance Group, composed of DHS 

training professionals responsible for evaluating and ensuring the quality 

of DHS training programs, conducted an informal survey of evaluation 

practices in various components with the intent of identifying effective 

evaluation approaches. A training official involved in the group told us that 

this survey was particularly important for the department’s newer 

organizations, such as the Directorate for Information Analysis and 

Training Evaluation 

and Quality 

Assurance Group

This group consists 

of training 

professionals who 

are responsible for 

evaluating and 

ensuring the quality 

of training programs 

in DHS. The goal is 

to increase 

information sharing 

as a community of 

practice and to 

determine best 

practices to share.

Advanced 

Distributed 

Learning Group

This group consisting

of e-learning 

professionals from 

throughout DHS, 

services as a 

community of 

practice and makes 

recommendations 

on e-learning 

policies and 

programs. It also 

served as the lead 

on a recent study 

about Advanced 

Distributed Learning 

in DHS.

Training 

Commodity 

Council

This council brings 

together training 

and contracting staff 

to explore ways to 

improve the ability 

for organizational 

components to 

evaluate and select 

training vendor 

resources in the 

areas of leadership 

training and 

development 

acquisition 

workforce 

development.

Leadership Training 

and Development 

Group

This group consists 

of DHS training 

professionals 

responsible for 

delivering leadership 

training for 

supervisors, 

managers, and 

executives. The 

purpose of the group 

is to serve as a 

community of 

practice. It has 

provided information 

and recommendations

regarding current and 

proposed DHS 

leadership programs.

Training 

Leaders Council

The council consists of the leaders of 

training organizations throughout DHS who meet 

monthly to discuss training topics and challenges, and to advise 

the CHCO on departmental training policies.

Source: GAO representation of DHS information.

Subgroups
Page 18 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Infrastructure Protection, which need to establish new practices from 

scratch. According to this official, his directorate and other organizations 

within DHS plan to use the group as a way to tap into the experience of 

other components within the department, such as CBP and FLETC, which 

have considerably more experience with training evaluation. 

In addition to sharing information about training practices, these groups 

can also provide a forum for exchanging practical information with the 

goal of making more efficient use of existing resources. For example, one 

training official told us that as a result of information obtained at TLC 

meetings, the official became aware of the existence of free training space 

available at facilities of two other components located in the Washington, 

D.C., metro area. Also, as a result of participating in these meetings, the 

official’s organization was able to send an additional person to the Federal 

Executive Institute after becoming aware that another component had 

surplus spaces and was offering them at a reduced price to other 

components within DHS.15

Another role carried out by the TLC is to collaborate on the formulation of 

training policies and advise the department’s CHCO accordingly. For 

example, the TLC, in cooperation with staff from the CHCO office and an 

external contractor, conducted a survey of training sites throughout the 

department in 2004. This study cataloged available physical resources and 

site capacities with the aim of identifying potential opportunities to share 

these resources more efficiently, consolidate unneeded or duplicative 

sites, and identify other opportunities to increase training collaboration 

and effectiveness. This effort resulted in a series of recommendations that 

were subsequently incorporated into the department’s training strategic 

plan. 

The activities of the department’s Advanced Distributed Learning Group 

(ADLG) provides another example of how training officials from different 

components have worked together to develop proposals for solutions to 

departmentwide challenges. This group identified several issues in the 

 15 The Government Employees Training Act provides that an agency can extend its training 

courses to employees of other government agencies (5 U.S.C. § 4104(2)). A Comptroller 

General decision reviewed the legislative history of this provision and concluded that 

training can be provided on a reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis, at the discretion of 

the agency offering the training (B-193293, Nov. 13, 1978). A DHS component that is 

offering training is authorized to make its courses available to other employees of DHS or 

of other government agencies. 
Page 19 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

area of technology and learning, including the need for a compatible IT 

infrastructure across components and the fact that some components 

lacked established systems with which to coordinate and manage training 

opportunities and attendance. Working with an outside consultant, the 

ADLG’s efforts resulted in a proposal that DHS create a new Advanced 

Distributed Learning (ADL) Program Management Office to oversee the 

process of setting common standards. This proposal was subsequently 

included as part of the department’s training strategic plan. In addition, the 

ADLG’s work also led to DHS entering into a memorandum of 

understanding with the Office of Management and Budget and the Office 

of Personnel Management to create a DHS headquarters learning 

management system. Throughout this process, the ADLG represented the 

interests of the DHS training community as it worked with representatives 

from the Chief Information Officer’s office and other functions within the 

department, as well as outside consultants. 

Despite these positive steps, DHS’s effort to foster communication and 

coordination through departmentwide training councils and groups is at a 

relatively early stage and so far has produced varied results. Some training 

organizations, such as the TLC and ADLG, have met regularly leading to 

tangible results, while others such as the Training Evaluation and Quality 

Assurance Group, have met a few times and have only begun to set the 

groundwork for substantive coordination and collaboration in these areas. 

In addition, a training official told us that even active organizations like the 

TLC have encountered difficulties related to the relative lack of staff 

support for these efforts. As a result, additional burdens sometimes fall to 

the leaders and members of these groups who, in addition to serving on 

one or more departmental training groups or councils, must carry out fulltime training positions at their home components. 

Another way DHS addresses departmentwide training issues is to directly 

provide training interventions or resources that address selected 

departmentwide needs, goals, or objectives. Three examples of the areas 

where DHS has worked to directly provide or support training on the 

departmental level are the following: (1) training related to the 

implementation of MAXHR, (2) DHS leadership development, and 

(3) training related to civil rights and civil liberties. 

Training for MAXHR implementation. DHS’s new human capital 

management system, known as MAXHR, represents a fundamental change 

in many of the department’s human capital policies and procedures that 

will affect a large majority—approximately 110,000—of its civilian 

DHS Provides Training to 

Address Selected 

Departmentwide Needs 
Page 20 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

employees. MAXHR covers many key human capital areas, such as pay, 

performance management, classification, labor relations, adverse actions, 

and employee appeals, and will be implemented in phases affecting 

increasing numbers of employees over the next several years. 

DHS correctly recognizes that a substantial investment in training is a key 

aspect of effectively implementing MAXHR, and in particular, the new 

performance management system it establishes. The need for in-depth 

performance management and employee development training is further 

supported by the department’s results on the 2004 Federal Human Capital 

Survey. In this survey, just over half of DHS respondents—51 percent—

believe supervisors or team leaders in their work units encourage their 

development at work, significantly less than the governmentwide response 

of 64 percent. DHS officials said they plan to educate all affected DHS 

employees on the details of the new system, how it will affect them, and 

the purpose of the changes. To do this, the department decided to develop, 

coordinate, and manage MAXHR training centrally through the CHCO office 

and offered its first training in May 2005. DHS plans to continue to provide 

its workforce with MAXHR training over the next several years following a 

phased approach that takes into account both when individual provisions 

of the new regulations take effect as well as the different audiences that 

exist within the DHS community, including human capital personnel, 

supervisors, and general employees. See figure 3 for a depiction of planned 

training during 2005 and its intended audiences. 
Page 21 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Figure 3: Timeline for MAXHR Training Scheduled through the End of 2005 

Note: This training schedule reflects the department’s plans as of early August 2005. However, we 

were told by a DHS official that these dates are subject to change. 

The department has worked with contractors to develop training that uses 

a variety of approaches, including classroom instruction, ADL, handbooks, 

manuals, and quick reference guides, depending on specific needs. For 

example, in May 2005, labor relations/employee relations specialists and 

attorneys in the department received 2-1⁄2 days of training on the 

provisions of the new regulations and the major difference between them 

and previous programs. Structured as a “train the trainer” type 

intervention intended to prepare participants to conduct supervisor 

briefings in their own components, this was an instructor-led course held 

at sites across the country. In addition to educating individuals about the 

regulations, procedures, and systems associated with MAXHR and the 

adoption of a new performance management system, the department also 

plans to offer training specifically targeted to developing the skills and 
Page 22 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

behaviors that will be necessary for its successful implementation. For 

example, in July 2005 supervisors began to receive training on techniques 

for providing meaningful feedback to, coaching, and mentoring employees. 

DHS leadership development training. Leadership development is 

another area top management in DHS acknowledged as appropriate for 

departmentwide training to supplement existing component-level 

offerings. In 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced the 

“One DHS” policy that identified the need to establish a common 

leadership competency framework for the department, as well as a unified 

training curriculum for current and future leaders. The purpose of this 

framework was to identify the skills, abilities, and attributes necessary for 

success as a DHS leader and to establish measurable standards for 

evaluation. 

To this end, the CHCO established the DHS Leadership Training and 

Development Group (LTDG), comprising training officials from each DHS 

component who combined an expertise in leadership development with 

personal knowledge of the missions and unique aspects of their particular 

organizational components. The LTDG met regularly from late 2003 to 

mid-2004. During this time, the group developed a set of new core 

leadership competencies for DHS supervisors, managers, and executives, 

which it issued in April 2004. According to a DHS official, since the 

development of these new competencies they have been used by one 

component as part of its own leadership development plan and they have 

also helped to guide and inform current MAXHR leadership development 

efforts. 

DHS has recently taken steps regarding another facet of its leadership 

development initiative—its SES Candidate Development Program. In June 

2005, DHS issued a management directive establishing the SES Candidate 

Development Program, which included a rigorous selection process and 

critical leadership development opportunities, such as mentoring, 

developmental assignments, and action learning designed to give SES 

candidates experience in different job roles. DHS initially announced that 

it planned to implement the program in fiscal year 2005, but now may 

delay doing so until fiscal year 2006. 

Civil rights/civil liberties training. A third area in which DHS has taken 

steps to provide or support departmental training involves civil rights and 

civil liberties. FLETC’s Behavioral Science Division and Legal Division, 

working with the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, produced 

several training interventions, including Web-based, CD-ROM, and in-
Page 23 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

person programs designed to increase sensitivity and understanding in 

protecting human and constitutional rights. As part of this effort, FLETC 

held diversity seminars that focused on promoting understanding and 

respect of religious practices, particularly involving those of the Arab and 

Muslim communities. In another example of this effort, the Office of Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties produced Web-based training on current policies 

regarding racial profiling. 

Our interviews with DHS training leaders suggest that further 

improvements can be made in communicating the availability of selected 

departmentwide training programs and resources. Staff at the Office of 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provided copies of its civil rights and 

liberties programs to training offices at each component in the 

department. While some senior training officials told us that their 

components actively disseminated this material by placing it on the 

component’s training Web site or incorporating it into preexisting courses, 

other senior training officials we spoke with were unaware of any 

departmental training on these topics. In addition, other officials told us 

that their component’s training office had independently developed its 

own material on Arabic sensitivity training, wholly apart from similar 

efforts undertaken by others in the department. More specifically, they 

told us that their development of certain training modules predated the 

development of very similar modules later prepared by DHS’s Office of 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and FLETC, leading these officials to 

conclude that they may have been able to assist departmental efforts by 

sharing their work had they been aware of them. 

As DHS moves forward, it faces challenges to achieving departmentwide 

training goals. These challenges include lack of common management 

information systems, the absence of commonly understood training 

terminology across components, the lack of specificity in authority and 

accountability relationships between the CHCO office and components, 

insufficient planning for effective implementation, and insufficient 

resources for ensuring effective implementation of training strategies. 

The formation of DHS from 22 legacy agencies and programs has created 

challenges to achieving departmentwide training goals. Of particular 

concern to the training officials we spoke with are the lack of common 

management information systems and the absence of commonly 

understood training terminology across components. The training 

functions at DHS’s components largely operate as they did before the 

creation of the department, with many of the same policies, practices, and 

Challenges May Impede 

Achievement of 

Departmentwide Training 

Goals 

Sharing of Training Information 

across Components Made More 

Difficult by Lack of Compatible 

Infrastructure and Commonly 

Understood Terminology 
Page 24 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

infrastructures of their former organizations, and within these 

organizations are, for the most part, the same training leaders. It will take 

time for these organizations to evolve into a coordinated, integrated 

department. We have previously reported that successful transformations 

of large organizations, even those faced with less strenuous 

reorganizations and pressure for immediate results than DHS, can take 

from 5 to 7 years to fully take hold.16

One issue DHS officials raised was the lack of common or compatible 

management information systems, such as information technology or 

financial management, which can inform decision makers’ efforts to make 

efficient use of training resources across components. For example, DHS 

officials stated that a key challenge they encountered involved the 

difficulty of knowing what others were doing outside their particular 

offices or components. DHS lacks any unified sourcebook that employees 

could consult for the names, telephone numbers, and other relevant 

information of key contact persons in areas such as acquisition. Obtaining 

accurate information about resources and products available in the 

marketplace as well as data on users, vendors, and kinds of work has been 

a challenge to that effort. Another issue cited by officials concerned the 

lack of compatibility between learning management systems across 

components. In addition, some training officials expressed concerns about 

the accuracy or timeliness of some training data, which can limit or at 

least considerably delay their ability to track and fully account for funds 

spent on training and training-related travel. DHS has several efforts under 

way to address these issues, including the development of an online 

training facilities inventory intended to increase awareness of existing 

resources across the department and its decision to begin developing 

common ADL policies and standards. 

Officials also told us that there was little or no common understanding 

among DHS organizational components regarding the meaning of such 

basic terms as “subject matter expert,” “orientation,” and even “training.” 

The lack of commonly understood terminology has presented challenges 

when officials from different components, including those participating in 

departmental training councils and groups, try to share practices with 

each other. These officials told us that the lack of commonly understood 

terminology can also affect their interactions with outside entities, such as 

 16 GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 
Page 25 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

contractors and state and local agencies. Besides facilitating 

communications and enabling components to share practices, a DHS 

official told us that a common nomenclature would increase the 

transparency of training practices to external contractors as well as the 

internal DHS training community. The department’s training strategic plan 

calls for the creation of a common training language and glossary of terms 

in fiscal year 2006, and officials told us that they are currently in the early 

stages of creating such a glossary. 

An effective management control environment appropriately assigns 

authority and delegates responsibility to the proper personnel to achieve 

organizational goals and objectives.17 In such an environment, staff 

members who are delegated responsibility are given corresponding 

authority. In light of this, DHS’s adoption of a “dual accountability” 

governance structure in 2004 presents certain challenges. Under this 

concept, heads of organizational components and the CHCO share 

responsibility for effective training in DHS. With a shared responsibility for 

DHS training, both the CHCO and component heads should have 

appropriate authority for making decisions regarding training.18 DHS does 

not specify how authority for training matters will be shared between the 

CHCO office and components for budgeting, staffing, and policy (e.g., 

determining which training functions, if any, should remain with 

components or be performed by DHS headquarters). The DHS 

management directive on training currently in place is a high-level twopage document that provides very few specifics on policies, procedures, 

and authorities for the CHCO office and the components. 

The department recognizes the need to clarify the responsibilities and 

authorities of the CHCO office and the components, as indicated by its 

inclusion in the DHS training strategic plan. Many of the tactics included in 

the plan would be difficult to successfully implement without first having a 

 17 GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

18 The DHS management directive entitled “Human Capital Line of Business Integration and 

Management” specifies several roles and responsibilities for the CHCO and component 

heads. Roles for the CHCO include advising and assisting top DHS officials on training 

issues and designing processes and systems to achieve departmentwide training goals. For 

example, component heads have the role of recruiting, hiring, and reviewing human capital 

officials, including training staff. However, DHS has not yet specified, in detail, the 

responsibility, accountability, and authority of the CHCO and the component heads, 

although officials have indicated that they plan to do so during fiscal year 2006. 

Authority and Accountability 

Relationships between CHCO 

Office and Components Are 

Not Sufficiently Specific 
Page 26 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

clear understanding of the responsibilities and authorities of the key 

organizations involved. More specifically, in the absence of clear authority 

relationships, decisions regarding how particular component training 

goals and strategies are to be incorporated in the DHS training strategic 

plan, or which training facilities should be consolidated to achieve 

departmental efficiencies, will be difficult to make. Without moving ahead 

with this effort in a timely fashion and completing the process of 

specifying how the CHCO office and components will share authority over 

training matters, it will be difficult for DHS to make the progress 

necessary on its departmentwide training agenda if it is to effectively 

implement the many strategies and tactics planned for fiscal year 2006. 

In addition, DHS’s efforts at coordinating training across components and 

clarifying roles and relationships between departmental functions and 

organizational components may be further hampered by the fact that the 

management directive governing the integration of the human capital 

function claims that the Coast Guard19 and the Secret Service20 are 

statutorily exempt from its application. We found no reasonable basis to 

conclude that the directive could not be made applicable to them and are 

not aware of any explicit statutory exemption that would prevent the 

application of this directive. Moreover, exempting the Coast Guard and the 

Secret Service from the provisions of this directive casts doubt on the 

authority and accountability relationships between these components and 

the CHCO, potentially complicating the department’s objective of 

clarifying the responsibilities, accountability, and authorities of the CHCO 

office and the components set forth in DHS’s training strategic plan. 

 19 While several provisions in the Homeland Security Act require the Coast Guard to be 

maintained as a distinct entity and would limit the range of management initiatives 

regarding the Coast Guard, none of them would appear to be applicable in this case. We 

find nothing in the DHS management directive on the integration of human capital that 

contravenes these limitations and nothing in the directive would reasonably appear to 

threaten the status of the Coast Guard as a distinct entity or otherwise impair its ability to 

perform statutory missions. We have reported on a similar situation with respect to the 

department’s acquisition function. See GAO, Homeland Security: Successes and 

Challenges in DHS’s Efforts to Create an Effective Acquisition Organization, GAO-05-179

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2005). 

20 Similarly, DHS’s management directive on human capital integration also asserts that the 

Secret Service is exempted by statute. As with the Coast Guard, we are unaware of any 

specific statutory exemption that would prevent the application of the DHS management 

directive regarding human capital, and given the nature of the management directive, we do 

not see any apparent reason to exempt the Secret Service. 
Page 27 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

In and of itself, DHS’s dual accountability authority structure is not an 

obstacle to implementation of departmentwide training efforts. However, 

without detailed implementation plans, it presents potentially significant 

challenges. Because of this shared authority, DHS will need to take great 

care when planning for departmentwide training initiatives involving 

multiple organizational components to ensure that resources are aligned 

with organizational units performing activities, especially related to crossorganizational sharing of training and delivery of common training. The 

lack of comprehensive and rigorous planning can lead to confusion over 

responsibilities, lack of coordination, and missed deadlines. Regular and 

rigorous use of detailed implementation plans is necessary to implement 

decisions and carry out activities in a coordinated manner. 

After we completed our audit work, DHS informed us that it plans to 

establish 31 tactic teams to take ownership of each of the tactics 

presented in the DHS training strategic plan to be completed by the end of 

fiscal year 2006. As of mid-August 2005, DHS provided us with 

documentation indicating that 3 of these teams have been established to 

date. These teams appear to have taken promising steps toward the 

establishment of detailed plans for implementing their respective training 

tactics by developing draft objectives, deliverables, and closure criteria. 

But as fiscal year 2006 approaches, time is short for the CHCO office and 

the components to establish the remaining teams and then take the actions 

necessary to develop and put in place the detailed plans that will be 

critical for effectively implementing DHS’s many training tactics by the 

end of the coming fiscal year. The TLC’s ADLG has made use of this type 

of detailed approach in a report proposing a distance learning architecture 

for the department. Appended to its report is a detailed plan outlining the 

major activities, milestones, resources, and components needed to support 

the successful implementation of the proposal. 

Several training officials told us they were concerned about the lack of 

dedicated resources and related capacity to carry out departmental 

initiatives. At the time we started our review, the CHCO office had only 

one full-time permanent employee dedicated to carrying out these 

activities; consequently, both training leaders and staff from organizational 

components were relied on to contribute to departmentwide efforts. After 

we concluded our audit work, a DHS official told us that the CHCO office 

had recently hired two additional full-time training staff: an ADL program 

manager and a staffer to oversee a recently approved SES candidate 

development program and headquarters operational leadership 

development. Individual components have also provided some assistance 

to departmentwide efforts through the appointment of temporary 

Planning May Be Insufficiently 

Detailed to Ensure Effective 

Implementation in “Dual 

Accountability” Environment 

Resources Needed to 

Implement Departmental 

Training Strategy 
Page 28 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

personnel. In late 2004, CBP and FLETC each detailed a staff member to 

the CHCO office to work on training-related projects. In addition, DHS has 

contracted for services to address selected departmentwide issues, such 

as setting common standards for ADL and reviewing DHS training 

facilities. 

DHS’s departmental training councils and groups are almost exclusively 

staffed by component training leaders who already have full-time training 

commitments. The department’s training strategic plan identifies many 

tactics for fiscal year 2006—including creating a common training 

language and glossary of training terms, establishing a repository for 

course catalog information, and developing a DHS training Web site—that 

will require considerable staff support to implement. Successful and timely 

completion of these and other initiatives will depend on sufficient 

resources being provided. 

It is essential for federal agencies to ensure that their training efforts are 

part of—and are driven by—their organizational strategic and 

performance planning processes. We have reported that aligning training 

with strategic priorities and systematically evaluating training activities 

play key roles in helping agencies to ensure that training is strategically 

focused on improving performance and meeting overall organizational 

goals.21 Strategic training practices in several DHS components or 

programs may provide models or insights to others in the department 

regarding ways to improve training practices.22 In areas where some 

components employed strategic practices, other components did not. 

We have previously reported that agencies demonstrating a strategic 

approach to training align their training efforts with overall strategic 

priorities. To do this, agencies can employ a variety of practices, such as 

linking training activities to strategic planning and budgeting and 

performing front-end analysis to ensure that training activities are not 

 21 GAO-04-546G. 

22 We have previously reported that organizations undergoing successful transformations 

look for and implement best practices wherever they may be found. See GAO-03-669 and 

GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum, Mergers and Transformation: Lessons Learned for a 

Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002). 

DHS’s Approach to 

Planning and 

Evaluation of Training 

Demonstrates Some 

Elements of Strategic 

Practice, but Is Still 

Evolving 

Aligning Training with 

Organizational Priorities Is 

a Strategic Practice 
Page 29 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

initiated in an ad hoc, uncoordinated manner, but rather are focused on 

improving performance toward the agency’s goals.23 Some components in 

DHS applied the strategic practice of aligning training with organizational 

priorities, while others did not. 

CBP links its new and existing training activities to its strategic priorities 

when planning for its strategic initiatives and expenditures. Importantly, 

the head of training at CBP is at the decision-making table with other CBP 

leaders to help establish training priorities consistent with the priorities of 

the CBP Commissioner. Relevant program managers are asked, “What 

training do you need to achieve the goals in your strategic plan?” Such 

discussions took place during planning for CBP’s custom trade pact 

initiative. 

During each budget cycle, CBP’s central training office issues a “call for 

training” to its mission and mission support customers to estimate CBP’s 

training needs for existing training activities and prioritize these needs 

based upon the Commissioner’s priorities. Prior to establishing this 

process, training was mostly decided on a first come, first serve basis 

without clear and transparent linkages to organizational priorities. CBP’s 

current process results in an annual training plan in which training needs 

are identified by priority as well as major occupational type, such as 

border patrol agent or CBP officer. Training decisions are based on 

whether training requested is critical, necessary, or “nice to have.” During 

fiscal year training plan implementation, CBP tracks actual training 

activity through a central database to determine whether CBP is using its 

planned training resources. By tracking plan usage through a centrally 

managed database, CBP is able to reallocate unused training funds prior to 

the end of the fiscal year for either training activities that were not 

included in its original plan because of capacity constraints, or for 

emerging training priorities. 

The Coast Guard has adopted a strategic and analytic approach to training 

through its use of the Human Performance Technology (HPT) model—a 

front-end training assessment process to determine the cause of 

performance problems. The process starts with the assumption that many 

factors influence individual and unit performance and it is important to 

determine what the factors are before concluding that training is the 

solution. From its HPT analysis, the Coast Guard determines whether 

 23 GAO-04-546G. 
Page 30 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

training is needed or whether another type of solution, such as a policy 

change, would be more appropriate. For example, in addressing a problem 

in aviation maintenance, a Coast Guard working group looked at likely 

causes of its performance problems and concluded that focusing on 

making aviation maintenance training better was not the only solution. 

More specifically, training officials encountered problems with job 

dissatisfaction and subpar performance from aviation chief warrant 

officers. In this case, training officials used HPT to analyze the nature of 

work performed by those responsible for aviation maintenance and 

concluded that there was not a good match between job skills and 

responsibilities. Specifically, over the last 20 years, the scope and nature of 

the work performed by chief warrant officers changed significantly from 

maintaining components to managing aircraft systems. Performance 

problems were mainly caused by significant changes in the job functions 

of these officers over the years rather than by a lack of adequate training. 

In cases where the HPT analysis concludes that training is warranted, a 

training analysis is performed to determine the specific training 

interventions. For example, in implementing activities related to the 

Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Coast Guard analyzed its 

training needs through the HPT process to determine training necessary to 

help maritime inspectors reduce the exposure of ports and waterways to 

terrorist activities. The analysis identified the skills and knowledge 

necessary for new maritime inspector tasks and provided training 

interventions, such as developing job aids and targeted classes, to prepare 

inspectors for the tasks most relevant to support their new role. New 

courses were piloted and then subjected to multilevel evaluations to 

assess their effectiveness and potential impact on employee performance. 

Agencies demonstrating a strategic approach to training employ a variety 

of practices, such as systematically evaluating training, actively 

incorporating feedback during training design, and using feedback from 

multiple perspectives.24 Several components and programs we examined at 

DHS used these practices, while others did not. 

 24 GAO-04-546G. 

Systematic Evaluation of 

Training Is a Strategic 

Practice 
Page 31 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

One commonly accepted model used for assessing and evaluating training 

programs consists of five levels of assessment (see fig. 4).25 In our review, 

virtually all components captured Level I data focusing on end-of-course 

reactions, while several also collected Level II data focusing on changes in 

employee skill, knowledge, or abilities. Several components evaluated, or 

were planning to evaluate, the impact of selected training programs on 

individual behavior, represented by Level III evaluations. 

Figure 4: Levels of Training Evaluation 

Note: GAO presentation based on information from Donald L. Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training 

Programs: The Four Levels (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), and Jack J. 

Phillips, ed., Implementing Evaluation Systems and Processes (Alexandria, Va.: American Society for 

Training and Development, 1998). 

To measure the real impact of training, however, agencies need to move 

beyond data focused primarily on inputs and outputs and develop 

additional indicators that help determine how training efforts contribute to 

 25 Donald L. Kirkpatrick, author of Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San 

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), developed a commonly recognized fourlevel model for evaluating training and development efforts. The fourth level is sometimes 

split into two levels with the fifth level, return on investment, representing a comparison of 

costs and benefits quantified in dollars. See Jack J. Philips, Implementing Evaluation 

Systems and Processes.
Page 32 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

the accomplishment of agency goals and objectives. At a couple of 

components, DHS officials told us they conducted Level IV evaluations, 

which assess the effectiveness of training interventions. We found no 

examples of the department or its components measuring the return on 

investment of training activities (Level V).26 Training effectiveness should 

be measured against organizational performance; however, not all levels of 

training evaluation require or are suitable for return on investment 

analysis. Determining whether training programs merit the cost of using 

such an approach depends upon the programs’ significance and 

appropriateness. 

CBP takes a systematic approach to evaluating its training activities 

through its National Training Evaluation Program (NTEP) to help program 

managers and trainers make more informed decisions on the effectiveness 

of training courses and their delivery. Despite the fact that CBP is a large 

and decentralized organization, NTEP has enabled it to collect course 

evaluation information and make this information available to a wide 

range of users in a timely manner. NTEP has also standardized evaluation 

data to allow for comparison of training throughout various field locations. 

Before the rollout of NTEP, CBP did not use a standard mechanism for 

collecting evaluation data, which, according to a CBP official, made it 

difficult to gather evaluation data nationally. 

CBP focuses on collecting both end-of-course student reactions (Level I) 

and supervisor assessments of student on-the-job performance after 

attending the training (Level III). Electronic or paper-based evaluations 

are entered into the NTEP information system. The “close to real time” 

online data enables supervisors to perform trend analysis on training 

quality and provides opportunities for them to troubleshoot training 

deficiencies and identify high-performing courses. The NTEP online 

system allows CBP employees access to evaluation data on a need to 

 26 Higher levels of evaluation, and in particular Level V, can be challenging to conduct 

because of the difficulty and costs associated with data collection and the complexity in 

directly linking training programs to improved individual and organizational performance. 

Factors to consider when deciding the appropriate level of evaluation include estimated 

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

visibility, and the anticipated “life span” of the effort. In light of these considerations, an 

agency may decide to evaluate participants’ reactions (Level I) for all of its training 

programs, while conducting a return on investment analysis (Level V) for only a very few. 

Each agency will need to 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. 
Page 33 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

know basis with four levels of access, while enabling them to locate 

evaluation data for any training class by date. Evaluation reports are 

aggregated for review by senior CBP officials. 

A CBP official told us that collecting course evaluation data is labor 

intensive, especially since many field operations still use paper processes. 

In addition, CBP has experienced a relatively low submission rate for 

Level I evaluation data for many of its training classes. The official told us 

that this was especially true for end-of-course reactions from staff in the 

field, where only about one-third of officer-related course participants 

submit evaluation forms. Given cost and labor challenges, CBP has 

targeted areas for evaluation that it believes are important, such as 

training related to its “One Face at the Border” initiative. 

In addition, agencies with a strategic approach to training do not wait until 

the conclusion of a training intervention to conduct evaluations. Rather, 

they approach evaluation through an iterative process capable of 

informing all stages of training.27 DHS’s CHCO office used multiple forms 

of feedback from employees to develop its training strategy for MAXHR

. 

From February through April 2005, the department administered surveys 

and conducted focus groups to obtain information on the needs, attitudes, 

and reactions of different communities affected by MAXHR. Shortly after 

issuing its new human capital regulations, the department provided basic 

information to all employees on the nature and timeline of changes they 

could expect under MAXHR through a Web broadcast. After the broadcast 

an online survey was used to obtain feedback from employees regarding 

the broadcast itself and their general feelings and concerns about the 

MAXHR initiative. 

DHS followed this initial survey with a larger survey to gather additional 

feedback on how information regarding MAXHR had been communicated, 

as well as specific areas where employees wanted additional information. 

Concerns about the need for training were prominent among the more 

than 9,000 responses received, with respondents ranking training as the 

second most serious challenge to the successful implementation of MAXHR

. 

According to a senior DHS official, the survey results will inform 

subsequent training and communication efforts. 

 27 GAO-04-546G. 
Page 34 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

DHS also collected evaluative feedback by conducting a series of focus 

groups held in locations across the country. The aim of these sessions was 

to validate the design of the performance management program 

established under MAXHR and identify concerns that would inform the 

development of additional training. Consistent with the strategic training 

practice of seeking out different perspectives when redesigning and 

assessing training efforts, DHS staff held separate focus groups for 

bargaining unit employees, non-bargaining unit employees, and 

supervisors and managers at all of the locations visited. This enabled them 

to identify issues of particular concern to each of these groups as well as 

issues common to all three. For example, both the bargaining unit and 

non-bargaining unit employee focus groups raised concerns about 

supervisors having inadequate skills for fairly administering the new 

performance management system. This concern was also shared by 

supervisors and managers themselves who expressed the need for 

additional skills training in areas such as goal setting and providing 

performance feedback. The sessions validated the CHCO office’s plans to 

offer performance management training to supervisors and managers 

before the implementation of the new system and assisted in refining 

issues for future training. 

FLETC’s methods for evaluating its major training programs include 

feedback from multiple perspectives when examining the benefits of 

training on actual employee job performance. FLETC’s Level III 

evaluations obtain feedback from both trainees and their supervisors to 

inform future improvements to training curricula. Evaluation results are 

compiled into a comprehensive report used during FLETC’s periodic 

curriculum reviews on its major training programs, such as the Natural 

Resource Police Training Program. The report contains detailed feedback 

from both the trainee and supervisor perspectives 6 months to 1 year after 

the trainee has attended the training program. For example, for the 

Natural Resource Police Training Program, FLETC analyzed how well the 

program prepared trainees in all aspects of their jobs. In this case, analysis 

identified those courses that had benefited program trainees the least—

including determining speed from skid marks and death notification. 

Training designers can use report information to improve program 

curricula and refocus training on knowledge and skill areas most critical 

to performing the job. In addition to Level III evaluation results, its 

training designers make program and individual class changes by using 

other methods of evaluation, such as direct student feedback after classes 

and trainee examinations, which determine how well the trainees 

understood the course material immediately following the program. 
Page 35 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

The creation of DHS resulted in significant cultural and transformational 

challenges for the department. We have previously reported that training is 

one way organizations successfully address cultural issues while 

simultaneously facilitating new ways to work toward the achievement of 

organizational goals.28 Among the DHS components in our review, some 

merged cultures from different legacy organizations (CBP, ICE), another 

component came as a small organization that greatly expanded when 

joining DHS (Federal Air Marshal Service), while others joined DHS intact 

(Secret Service, Coast Guard, FLETC), and still another was previously a 

part of a larger legacy organization (CIS). Each component faces the need 

to find a way to identify itself as part of the larger DHS organization, that 

is, with a sense of affiliation rather than as an outsider looking in. At the 

same time, components must either maintain their existing cultures or 

develop new cultures to adapt to changing missions and needs. The key is 

to build upon positive aspects of the components’ cultures as the larger 

organization develops its own culture. 

Agencies that undergo successful transformations change more than just 

their organizational charts, they also make fundamental changes in basic 

operations, such as how they approach strategic human capital 

management. DHS understands this, and the MAXHR initiative is part of an 

effort by the department to fundamentally change its approach to human 

capital management by establishing a personnel system that is flexible, 

performance oriented, and market based. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security and other top officials have actively 

supported the role of training in implementing these changes by making it 

a leadership expectation that all DHS executives, managers, and 

supervisors be personally involved as both participants in and supporters 

of MAXHR training efforts. The CHCO office, working with the assistance of 

 28 See GAO, Organizational Culture: Techniques Companies Use to Perpetuate or Change 

Beliefs and Values, GAO/NSIAD-92-105 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 1992), and 

Organizational Culture: Use of Training to Help Change DOD Inventory Management 

Culture, GAO/NSIAD-94-193 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 1994). The first of these reports 

examined techniques used by nine large private sector firms to affect their organizational 

cultures. We found that company officials identified two techniques that were of very great 

importance to a successful culture change: (1) total commitment of top management and 

(2) training that promotes and develops skills in line with the desired culture. More 

recently, we have reported on the cultural changes and key practices necessary for 

successful transformation. See, GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Transforming 

Government to Meet Current and Emerging Challenges, GAO-05-830T (Washington, D.C.: 

July 13, 2005). 

DHS Has Used 

Training in an Effort 

to Help Its Workforce 

as the Department 

Undergoes 

Transformation and 

Cultural Change 
Page 36 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

outside contractors, has developed several training interventions aimed at 

providing these groups with the tools and information needed to champion 

the benefits of a performance-based culture and successfully implement 

MAXHR in their components. 

In August 2005, DHS sponsored a 2-1⁄2 day training program for 350 to 400 

of the department’s senior executives and flag officers. The program 

covered a range of topics, including an update on current DHS priorities; 

techniques and best practices for how senior leaders can effectively 

support and implement these priorities; as well as specific management, 

communication, and training approaches that can be used to support the 

creation of a performance-based culture. The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, 

and Under Secretary for Management all participated in the program, 

which also featured presentations from human capital and organizational 

change experts from outside the department. In addition to its focus on 

MAXHR implementation, which included both large and small group 

sessions wherein participants could discuss performance management and 

share information on practices, the course also provided a forum for the 

department’s top leadership and senior executives to review the then 

recently issued recommendations resulting from the Secretary’s Second 

Stage Review process. 

Another training intervention sponsored by the department directly targets 

managers and supervisors who will be responsible for carrying out many 

of the key behaviors associated with the new system and whose active 

support is viewed by DHS as critical for achieving the transformation to a 

performance-based culture. The 2-1⁄2 day program focuses on developing 

and improving interpersonal, managerial, and other so-called soft skills. 

DHS expects to provide the training to approximately 12,000 managers and 

supervisors throughout the department. 

On the component level, training has also played an important role in 

CBP’s effort to transform from the traditional, largely siloed approach 

used by its legacy agencies when protecting our borders to a new 

integrated concept that it believes is more in line with its current needs. 

Officials noted that the merger into CBP led to some resistance from 

employees who had not yet understood or accepted the reasons for the 

merger. These same officials acknowledged that they must continue to 

work at informing employees why changes were made and provide 

vehicles for better integration through training. For example, in the “One 

Face at the Border” initiative, supervisory training has incorporated some 

elements of cultural integration by including a session on bridging the 

culture gap. Officials at CBP designed and piloted a training module to be 
Page 37 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

added to the supervisory curriculum specifically targeting how they can 

more effectively understand the value and perspective of staff coming out 

of the legacy organizational cultures. 

In addition, training played a key role in facilitating the transition of CBP’s 

workforce from its three legacy organizations. Training for the new CBP 

officer and CBP agriculture specialist positions aimed to improve 

coordination and communication across inspection functions and enhance 

the flexibility of CBP’s workforce. Specifically, CBP created a series of 

training courses to provide former Customs and former Immigration and 

Naturalization Service officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to 

carry out the responsibilities of this new position. To develop this training, 

CBP-wide working groups identified and validated critical tasks for the 

new frontline CBP officer to perform. A mix of training delivery methods 

were used (i.e., e-learning and instructor led), and classroom knowledge 

and skills were reinforced with on-the-job training. CBP provided 

extensive train-the-trainer courses so that trainers could return to their 

field sites and instruct officers there. (See app. 2.) 

DHS must continue to make progress on three important aspects of 

training as it moves forward: (1) forging an effective role for training at the 

departmental level and implementing its departmentwide training strategy; 

(2) taking a strategic approach to training practices, in part by building 

upon examples of good practice to be found among its former 

organizations, as well as considering other examples of strategic practices; 

and (3) finding ways that training can help to foster organizational 

transformation and cultural change within the department. To date, DHS 

has taken positive steps in these areas, yet significant challenges lie ahead. 

The ability to make decisions from a departmentwide perspective and then 

effectively implement them will help determine whether training in DHS 

achieves its intended results. Strong leadership will play a critical role in 

this process. To be successful, DHS will need to have both a clear plan of 

action as well as the ability to anticipate and overcome several 

implementation challenges. The creation of the TLC and the development 

of the department’s first training strategic plan both represent a good start 

in this process. Better performance measures, more specific milestones, 

and the inclusion of performance targets would make DHS’s strategic 

training plan a more useful tool for both internal and external stakeholders 

to use in tracking the department’s progress toward achieving its training 

objectives. Clarifying authority relationships between the CHCO and 

component heads, developing detailed implementation plans, and giving 

Conclusions 
Page 38 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

appropriate attention to providing resources to implement training 

initiatives when setting funding priorities are also likely to be critical 

factors in building and sustaining an effective role for department-level 

training at DHS. 

A strategic approach toward training is also very important as DHS seeks 

to build on its current efforts and strives to move forward. As we have 

noted, some programs and components in DHS already use specific 

strategic training practices, and other components within the department 

can benefit from their example. As DHS implements new training 

programs, such as the large-scale, multistage training being developed to 

support the implementation of MAXHR, it has a valuable opportunity to 

reflect the lessons learned from these experiences in subsequent 

departmentwide training efforts. Finally, the transition to a new 

department has brought with it cultural challenges, and training can play a 

role in both defining and refining an effective DHS culture without 

sacrificing the cultural history of its components. 

To help DHS establish and implement an effective and strategic approach 

to departmentwide training, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security take the following actions: 

• adopt additional good strategic planning and management practices to 

enhance the department’s training strategic plan by (1) creating a clearer 

crosswalk between specific training goals and objectives and DHS’s 

organizational and human capital strategic goals and (2) developing 

appropriate training performance measures and targets; 

• clearly specify authority and accountability relationships between the 

CHCO office and organizational components regarding training as a first 

step to addressing issues DHS has identified for fiscal year 2006; 

• ensure that the department and component organizations develop detailed 

implementation plans and related processes for training initiatives; and 

• when setting funding priorities, give appropriate attention to providing 

resources to support training councils and groups to further DHS’s 

capacity to achieve its departmentwide training goals. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security 

for comment and received written comments from DHS that are reprinted 

in appendix III. In addition, we received technical comments and 

clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate. DHS generally 

agreed with our recommendations. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
Page 39 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

We will provide copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and other interested parties. Copies will also be provided to 

others upon request. In addition, this report is available at no charge on 

the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov. Major contributors to this report were Kimberly 

Gianopoulos, Assistant Director; Peter J. Del Toro; Robert Yetvin; and 

Gerard Burke. 

Sincerely yours, 

George H. Stalcup 

Director, Strategic Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 40 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

To achieve our objectives, we reviewed training at the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) at both the departmental and component levels. 

When examining training at the departmental level, we collected, 

reviewed, and analyzed the department’s training rules, procedures, 

policies, and organizational charts; departmental, human capital, and 

training strategic plans; human capital and training management 

directives; Internet and intranet Web pages; and other relevant documents. 

To further our understanding of training at DHS and the issues and 

challenges involved, we interviewed training and human capital officials in 

the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and the leaders and 

coleaders of DHS’s training councils and groups. We also observed the 

January 2005 meeting of the Training Leaders Council. We supplemented 

our review of departmental training at DHS by examining the department’s 

effort to use training related to MAXHR to foster transformation and 

cultural change in the department. 

In addition, we reviewed training at major organizational components in 

DHS and selected the six largest components based on staff size and 

budget. Using these criteria, we reviewed training at Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (including the Federal Air Marshal Service, the 

Federal Protective Service, and the Leadership Development Center), the 

Coast Guard, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security 

Administration. See figure 5 for a depiction of the DHS organizational 

structure in place during the time of our review. These components 

collectively represent about 95 percent of the total staff at DHS. We also 

included the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center because of the 

special role it plays in training employees from other DHS components. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 41 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Figure 5: DHS Components Included in Our Review 

Note: This figure does not depict all components and entities in the department, but is intended to 

provide a general framework within which to present the components and centers included in our 

review. The organizational structure depicted above was in place during our review, and does not 

reflect actual or proposed changes related to DHS’s Second Stage Review. 

When examining training at selected components, we reviewed 

component-level strategic, human capital, and training plans when 

available; training budget requests and expenditure documents; training 

procedures, policies, and organizational charts; rules and policies for 

identifying and prioritizing training programs; Internet and intranet Web 

pages; selected training course materials; and other relevant documents 

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

Legislative Affairs

Public Affairs

Privacy Office

Private Sector Office

Civil Rights and

Civil Liberties

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Secret Service

U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection

U.S. Immigration 

and Customs 

Enforcement

• Federal Air 

 Marshal Service

• Federal Protective 

 Service

• Leadership 

 Development 

 Center

State and Local

Coordination

National Capital Region 

Coordination

HQ Operational 

Integration Staff

Inspector General

International Affairs

Counter Narcotics

Directorate of 

Management

Directorate of Science 

and Technology

Directorate of 

Information Analysis 

and Infrastructure 

Protection

Directorate of Border 

and Transportation 

Security

Directorate of Emergency 

Preparedness and 

Response

Federal Law 

Enforcement 

Training Center

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

Source: GAO representation of DHS information.

Office of the Chief 

Human Capital 

Officer
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 42 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

produced by these components. To further our understanding of training 

at the component level, we also interviewed training officials at each of 

the selected components and identified these individuals based on their 

knowledge, experience, and leadership roles. We conducted our 

interviews at component headquarters or field offices located in the 

Washington, D.C., area. In addition, as part of our review of DHS’s efforts 

to foster transformation and cultural change, we observed training related 

to CBP’s “One Face at the Border” initiative in northern Virginia. 

To help determine whether DHS used a strategic approach in planning and 

evaluating its training activities at the departmental or component levels, 

we referenced criteria contained in our guide for assessing strategic 

training and development efforts in the federal government.1

 This guide 

outlines a framework for assessing training efforts, consisting of a set of 

principles and key questions that federal agencies can use to ensure that 

their training investments are targeted strategically and not wasted on 

efforts that are irrelevant, duplicative, or ineffective. We selected our case 

examples based on their suitability for demonstrating specific strategic 

training practices. Other components within DHS may, or may not, be 

engaged in similar practices. To determine whether DHS followed leading 

management practices in planning and implementing departmentwide 

training, we also drew on our previous work on strategic planning and 

effective management practices. 

We did not include within our scope training intended for audiences 

external to DHS, and we generally covered training and training 

management in effect during the period in which we did our work. We 

conducted our work from November 2004 through July 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested 

comments on a draft of this report from DHS, which are reprinted in 

appendix III. The comments are addressed in the Agency Comments 

section of this report. 

 1 GAO-04-546G. 
Appendix II: “One Face at the 

Border” Training at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection 

Page 43 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

One of the initial goals for creating DHS was to better protect the United 

States from terrorists entering the country, and ports of entry are the 

means through which terrorists can enter. The creation of CBP within 

DHS merged border inspection functions at U.S. ports of entry, which had 

previously been performed by three separate agencies. Known as “One 

Face at the Border,” this initiative created the positions of CBP officer and 

CBP agriculture specialist that combined aspects of three former inspector 

functions. This initiative aimed to improve coordination and 

communication of inspections to better protect the nation’s borders from 

terrorists as well as to improve entry for legitimate travel and trade. 

To successfully make the transition to these new positions, significant 

training was needed. Specifically, CBP created a series of training courses 

to provide former U.S. Customs and former Immigration and 

Naturalization Service officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to 

carry out the responsibilities of this new position. In addition, CBP officers 

received training to meet CBP’s new mission priority of terrorism 

prevention. Although the emphasis was on cross-training legacy officers, 

the new curriculum was also geared to new hires. Because agricultural 

inspections are more specialized, CBP officers receive training sufficient 

to enable them to identify potential agricultural threats, make initial 

regulatory decisions, and determine when to make referrals to CBP 

agriculture specialists. More detailed agricultural inspections are 

performed by these specialists who have substantial training and 

background in agricultural issues. 

A variety of training delivery methods were used (e.g., e-learning and 

classroom) and these training methods were reinforced with extensive onthe-job training. In addition to traditional content areas (e.g., cross-training 

for former U.S. Customs officers includes courses on immigration 

fundamentals and immigration law), training courses also covered CBP’s 

new priority mission of preventing terrorism (e.g., training in detecting 

possible terrorists and fraudulent documents, honing interviewing skills, 

and making appropriate referrals to staff for additional inspection). CBP 

emphasizes on-the-job training in an effort not to place inspectors on the 

job without direct supervisory and tutorial backup. Training for new 

recruits has also been modified to include a preacademy orientation 

program at the port location where the recruit will eventually work before 

he or she receives academy training. This is a 72-day course for CBP 

officers and a 46-day course for CBP agriculture specialists. 

CBP’s main strategy to prepare for field delivery of training was to provide 

extensive train-the-trainer courses so that trainers could return to their 

Appendix II: “One Face at the Border” 

Training at U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection 
Appendix II: “One Face at the 

Border” Training at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection 

Page 44 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

field sites and instruct officers there. Training priorities were established 

with the idea of spacing the training out so that field offices would not be 

overwhelmed. For example, CBP rolled out its primary cross-training to 

airports, while antiterrorism training was rolled out to land borders. 

Officials reported that cross-training benefited CBP officers since they 

have gained more knowledge by learning both immigration and customs 

laws and procedures. This increase in knowledge has the potential benefit 

of providing more variety in job tasks as well as increasing the 

opportunities for advancement since an officer can now apply for 

supervisory-level positions that had previously been open only to former 

U.S. Customs or Immigration and Naturalization Service officers. 

Change has not come about without challenges, however, as many officers 

were reported to have resisted changes to their responsibilities, mainly 

related to the difficulties in learning a new set of procedures and laws. 

Officials noted that there has been an enormous amount of required 

training for CBP officers, and it can sometimes be overwhelming. For 

former officers, in addition to completing an extensive cross-training 

schedule and new training related to terrorism prevention, there are many 

other required courses related to their mission. For example, training 

modules are required in areas such as body scanning, hazardous materials, 

cargo inspection, and seized assets. 

Although staffing challenges may ultimately be relieved with trained 

officers able to perform dual inspections, officials noted that it has been 

extremely difficult to take staff off-line to complete the “One Face at the 

Border” training. One official said that classes have been very difficult to 

schedule because of the constant pressure to staff operations. For 

example, in one case, a class was canceled right after it began because the 

trainees were pulled out to staff their inspection booths. This official also 

noted that trainers have had to be very flexible to accommodate staff 

schedules to ensure that training occurs. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 45 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 46 GAO-05-888 Training at DHS (450353) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER