Grant Workforce: Agency Training Practices Should Inform Future Government-wide Efforts
Published: 2013-06-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Grants are a key tool used by the federal government to achieve a wide variety of national objectives. However, there are no government-wide training standards or requirements for the federal grant workforce. COFAR has reported it plans to develop such standards. GAO was asked to describe how the grant workforce is trained and what challenges and good practices exist. This report (1) describes the federal grant workforce at selected agencies and analyzes the challenge of identifying the workforce government-wide and (2) examines selected good practices agencies use and challenges, if any, in grants training and the potential implications for developing government-wide grants training standards. GAO obtained government-wide information on grants training through a questionnaire to chief learning officers at 22 federal agencies. For in-depth illustrative examples of grants training practices and challenges, GAO selected four agencies--Education, HHS, State, and DOT--based on factors such as total grant obligations and the number and type of grant programs administered. GAO also reviewed documentation and interviewed officials at OMB and OPM.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Identifying the federal grant workforce presents challenges due to differences in how agencies manage grants and the wide range of job series that make up the grant workforce. Some agencies manage grants by using a combination of program specialists (subject-matter experts) and grants management specialists, while other agencies use program specialists to manage the entire grant process. In the four agencies that GAO focused on for this review--the Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), State (State), and Transportation (DOT)--agency officials identified over 5,100 employees who were significantly involved in managing grants, spanning more than 50 different occupational job series. Recognizing the need for a classification that would more accurately capture the work of federal employees who manage grants, in 2010 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) created the "Grants Management Specialist" job series. However, due to the different ways that agencies manage grants, the extent to which agencies have adopted this series varies widely. More than half of the 22 federal grant-making agencies GAO surveyed make limited or no use of the job series. The Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR), established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in October 2011 to provide recommendations on grants policy and management reforms, has announced plans to develop government-wide grants training standards, but it has not released information on how it plans to define the grant workforce. Defining the grant workforce is an important step in developing an effective government-wide grants training strategy.
Agency officials identified three key practices to develop the grant workforce: (1) competencies, (2) agency-specific training, and (3) certification programs. First, some agencies developed their own competency models in order to better reflect the way they assigned grants management responsibilities. Officials at these agencies told GAO that OPM's grants management competency model was not directly applicable to employees carrying out the program specialist role in their organizations. For example, rather than apply OPM's competency model, a component of HHS developed a separate competency model tailored to program specialist employees responsible for managing grants. Second, agencies addressed their grants training needs through courses and other training mechanisms designed to provide knowledge of agency-specific policies and procedures. Officials reported challenges finding grants training that met all the needs of the grant workforce, and responded to this by customizing grants training courses. For example, Education customized commercial courses to include agency-specific policies and procedures and a component of HHS developed its own grants management courses to achieve the same goal. Third, to ensure a minimum level of proficiency in grants management, some agencies established grants management certification programs and tailored the certifications to fit the different roles within the grant workforce. For example, State tailored separate certification programs after recognizing two distinct roles played by its employees who manage grants. These agencies' experiences have implications for COFAR's plans to develop government-wide training standards, including creating grants management competencies, delivering training for those competencies, and establishing certification standards.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making recommendations to the Director of OMB regarding the importance of including both types of grants management roles--grants management specialists and program specialists--when developing government-wide grants management competencies and certification standards.
OMB staff concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Grants are a key tool used by the federal government to achieve a wide  variety of national objectives such as providing medical, financial,  housing, and foreign assistance, as well as constructing and maintaining  our nation’s highways, bridges, and mass transit systems. Federal outlays  for grants to state and local governments totaled approximately $545  billion in fiscal year 2012, comprising over 15 percent of all federal  outlays. The value of these grants has grown considerably over the  years, rising from $91 billion in fiscal year 1980 (about $225 billion in  fiscal year 2012 constant dollars)—a real, inflation-adjusted increase of  more than 140 percent.
Given the role federal grants play in achieving national objectives, as well  as grants’ considerable growth in value and complexity over the past  three decades, it is important that the federal workforce that manages  these grants has the necessary knowledge and skills to do its job. In this  regard, the government’s approach to another tool it uses to achieve  goals—purchasing goods and services through federal contracts— provides an interesting contrast. In fiscal year 2012, the federal  government spent approximately $28 billion more on grants to state and  local governments than it did on federal acquisitions. Under federal  acquisitions law, there are clear government-wide training requirements  for the acquisitions workforce intended to help ensure its quality and  effectiveness. However, similar government-wide training requirements  do not exist for the grant workforce.
In light of this, you asked us to examine how the federal government  trains its grant workforce and what challenges, if any, exist. In this report,  we (1) describe the federal grant workforce at selected agencies and  analyze the challenge of identifying the workforce government-wide and  (2) examine selected good practices agencies use and challenges they  face, if any, in training the grant workforce, and the potential implications  of these practices and challenges for a government-wide approach  toward developing grants management competencies, training, and  certification. You were also interested in the federal acquisitions  workforce, which we reported on separately.
To accomplish our objectives, we gathered information both government- wide and at four specific agencies. To obtain a government-wide  perspective, we reviewed federal employee data from the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) online FedScope information system  that supports statistical analyses of federal human resources data,  administered a questionnaire to the chief learning officers (CLO) at 22  federal agencies with an active grant workforce, and reviewed  documentation and interviewed officials from the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) and OPM. To obtain illustrative examples of  experiences, challenges, and good practices in training the grant  workforce, we selected four agencies—the Departments of Education  (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), State (State), and  Transportation (DOT). The four agencies we selected account for 84  percent of total grant dollars and 61 percent of total discrete grants  awarded in fiscal year 2012. In addition, these agencies manage a variety  of grant types, including formula, block, and project grants, and cover a  broad range of areas including health, education, and transportation,  among others. To examine good practices that agencies use in training  the grant workforce, we used criteria from our work on strategic training  and workforce planning in the federal government, internal control  standards for training, and OPM guidance.
To describe the federal grant workforce and analyze challenges related to  workforce identification, we reviewed employee data from FedScope,  collected workforce information through our 22-agency questionnaire and  from our four case example agencies, and we reviewed documentation  and interviewed knowledgeable officials at OMB, OPM, Education, HHS,  State, and DOT. To describe how the federal grant workforce is trained  and to identify challenges and good practices, we reviewed relevant  federal laws and administrative guidance, collected information on  training policies and practices in our questionnaire and in interviews with  training officials at selected sub-agency components of our four case  example agencies, and reviewed agency documents and collected  information on training courses and their costs at Education, HHS, State,  and DOT. To obtain information on government-wide policies and  initiatives in this area, we reviewed documentation and interviewed  officials at OMB and OPM. Since the focus of our work was on describing  how the federal government trains its grant workforce, we conducted the  individual agency reviews in order to identify illustrative examples of  grants training experiences, challenges, and good practices and not to  assess the specific grants training programs at these selected agencies.  Additional details regarding our objectives, scope, and methodology are  provided in appendix I. We include illustrative examples from our case  example agencies throughout the report with additional details about  grants training for each of the four case example agencies provided in  appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 through June 2013  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: There are no specific government-wide training standards or training  requirements for the federal grant workforce; however, the administration  has taken some steps toward developing such standards. Between 2004  and 2011, a work group within the administration’s Grants Policy  Committee (GPC) studied the issue of training and certifying the grant  workforce, which led to a number of recommendations. However, the  work group’s recommendations were never formally adopted by the GPC.  In 2011, OMB formed the Council on Financial Assistance Reform  (COFAR), an interagency group of executive branch officials, to replace  the GPC and another federal board—the Grants Executive Board—with  the stated aim of creating a more streamlined and accountable structure  to coordinate financial assistance, including grants. In November 2012,  just over a year after it was created, COFAR identified the need to  develop a qualified and professional workforce as one of five priorities to  guide its work on grants management reform in the coming years. To  accomplish this, COFAR set five goals:
Establish core competencies for grants managers by September  2013.
Develop a baseline body of knowledge as a shared resource by  September 2013.
Establish a government-wide resource repository for federal grants  professionals by September 2013.
Provide training for core competencies by September 2014.
Establish certification standards by September 2015.
In developing proposals for grants training, COFAR considered the  process and requirements that are in place for training the federal  acquisitions workforce. Federal agencies generally do not need explicit  statutory authority to make particular acquisitions of goods or services.  However, for the procurement of goods and services, federal executive  agencies are governed by a set of requirements specified in the Federal  Acquisition Regulation. Congress has recognized the need for a  professional acquisitions workforce by requiring executive agencies to  establish management policies and procedures for the effective  management of this workforce—including education, training, and career  development. Several governmental organizations play critical roles in  assisting agencies to build and train their acquisitions workforce. These  organizations include OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy, which  provides government-wide guidance on managing the acquisitions  workforce, and the Federal Acquisition Institute, which promotes the  development of the civilian acquisitions workforce.
In contrast to acquisitions, federal agencies do not have inherent authority  to enter into grant agreements without affirmative authorizing legislation.  Consequently, each federal grant program has legislation that identifies  the types of activities that it can fund and the purposes it is to accomplish.  Frequently, the authorizing legislation that establishes a particular grant  program will define the program objectives and leave the administering  agency to fill in the details through regulation. In addition to specific  statutory requirements, OMB issues administrative requirements in the  form of circulars. These circulars provide government-wide guidance that  sets standards for a range of grants management activities, including  grant application forms, cost principles, audits, and financial reporting.  However, training is not one of the issues for which specific government- wide guidance is provided.
While many differences exist among grant programs, a basic distinction  can be made between two broad grants management roles. The first role  is grants management specialist—employees who generally possess  detailed knowledge of OMB grants administration requirements, specific  agency policies and procedures for grants management, and relevant  laws and regulations to help ensure accountability of the grant funds.  Grants management specialists are responsible for performing many of  the daily grants management tasks from the pre-award phase through  closeout. The second role is program specialist—employees who  possess expert knowledge in the specific area necessary to meet a  grant’s goals. Reflecting the wide variety of federal programs that grants  support, individuals performing this role typically possess a specialized  program or subject-matter expertise. These specialists can be involved in  several stages of the grant process including announcing the terms and  conditions of a grant, recommending potential grantees, and monitoring  grantees’ progress in achieving the grant’s goals. Although these  categories describe separate focus areas and many employees involved  with grants concentrate on one or the other, the categories are not  mutually exclusive. A single employee can carry out the functions typically  associated with both a grants management specialist and a program  specialist.
section_title: Identifying the Federal Grant Workforce Presents Challenges
paragraphs: Despite the existence of a “grants management specialist” job series,  identifying the federal grant workforce presents challenges due to  differences in how agencies manage grants and the range of employees  involved in grants management. We have previously reported that  organizations need to determine the workforce skills necessary to achieve  their strategic goals as part of an effective training and development  program. However, identifying these skills, as well as the roles,  responsibilities, and training needs of individuals in the federal grant  workforce at a government-wide level remains a challenge.  This is due to  the different ways agencies assign grants management responsibilities to  grants management specialists and program specialists and the wide  range of job series the agencies use.
subsections: section_title: Agency Adoption of OPM’s Grants Management Specialist Job Series Has Been Uneven Partly Due to Differences in How Agencies Manage Grants
paragraphs: Prior to 2010, no specific job classification existed for the many federal  employees responsible for carrying out managerial and administrative  tasks related to grants, including ensuring compliance with OMB and  agency policies and procedures. In the absence of a specific job  classification, officials at selected agencies told us that they classified  these employees under a variety of other job series that did not focus on  grants, such as general, administrative, and subject-matter job titles.  OPM recognized the need for a classification that would more accurately  capture the work of federal employees who manage grants, and in  November 2010 the agency established a “grants management specialist”  (series 1109). Since then, the extent to which agencies have adopted the  1109 job series has varied greatly. As of December 2012, there were  1,414 federal employees in the 1109 series in the 22 grant-making  agencies we included in our survey. More than half of these employees  worked at HHS. In contrast, 5 of these agencies do not have any series  1109 employees and an additional 7 have fewer than 20 (see figure 1).
The way that an agency manages grants may explain whether, and to  what extent, it has adopted the grants management specialist job series  1109. In the four agencies we selected for further review, we saw  differences in the extent to which they adopted the 1109 series, partly  because of different grants management approaches. At HHS, where  grants management specialists work alongside program specialists,  officials told us that they embraced the 1109 job series. Shortly after OPM  introduced the series, HHS began moving hundreds of employees, who  were classified in several general or miscellaneous administrative series  and whose primary work responsibilities focused on carrying out  managerial and administrative tasks, to the new 1109 series. In contrast,  both Education and DOT—where program specialists primarily manage  grants—largely chose not to use the new series. Officials at these  agencies told us that this decision resulted from their grants management  approach where program specialists, who have expert subject-matter  knowledge in the grant program area, also carry out the functions of  grants management specialists. These officials also had concerns about  transitioning program specialists such as engineers or educational  specialists, who have specific educational requirements, to the 1109  series which has no such requirements.
section_title: Agencies Assign Employees in a Wide Variety of Job Series to Manage Grants Other than the Grants Management Specialist Job Series
paragraphs: In addition to the 1109 grants management specialist series, the federal  grant workforce includes a wide range of employees in other job series,  many of whom function as program specialists. These employees  generally possess specialized education and expertise in an area directly  relevant to the grant’s subject area. For example, at DOT, the employees  responsible for managing federal airport safety and improvement grants  are typically civil engineers (series 810), who are familiar with airport  runway construction standards. Similarly, HHS employs social scientists  (series 101) with expertise in child and family services as well as doctors  and nurses (series 602 and 610, respectively) to manage and support  grants that fund health care and related services to needy families. Some  agencies, like DOT, typically rely upon program specialists to carry out  both the grants management and program specialist functions, while  others, such as HHS, employ individuals whose primary responsibility is  to administer daily grants management tasks while working alongside  program specialists.
With such a diverse range of job series across federal grant-making  agencies and given the considerable variation in how agencies assign  individuals to grants management roles, it is difficult to identify all the staff  responsible for managing federal grants other than on an agency-by- agency basis. We asked the four agencies we focused on in this review— Education, HHS, State, and DOT—to identify the number of employees  they considered to be in their grant workforce and provide us with  breakdowns by job series. They identified over 5,100 employees,  spanning more than 50 different occupational job series. These include  grants management specialists, program specialists (e.g., public health  program specialists, education program specialists, civil engineers,  transportation specialists, and Foreign Service officers), auditors, and  financial managers, among others. See figure 2 for a visual  representation of the relative frequency of more than 90 percent of these  occupational job series. For a complete listing of these job series as well  as the total number of employees in each, as identified by Education,  HHS, State, and DOT, see appendix III.
With the exception of the grants management specialists in the 1109  series, grant officials at each of these four agencies told us that only a  subset of those in the 57 job series they identified as part of the grant  workforce are actually assigned to work on grants. The program  specialists, accountants, contracting officers, and other individuals  identified as part of the grant workforce generally comprised a relatively  small subset of the total number of agency employees in those  associated job series. For instance, while HHS employed over 6,800  doctors as medical officers (series 602) as of December 2012, officials  identified only 29 of these as part of the grant workforce. Moreover, for  some of the employees identified as being in the grant workforce, working  on grants-related activities may only be part of what they do.
On a government-wide level, OMB staff told us that they understand that  the 1109 series does not encompass the entire federal grant workforce. In  a town hall meeting held in December 2012 with grant-making agencies  to discuss COFAR priorities, COFAR officials recognized that  government-wide efforts to develop training and certification standards  will need to consider how to reach members of the grant workforce who  are not in the 1109 series. To date, COFAR has not made public specific  plans on how it will define the grant workforce, nor which members of the  grant workforce—such as grants management specialists and program  specialists—it intends to include when developing government-wide  training standards.
section_title: Agency Practices in Support of the Grant Workforce Included Identifying Competencies, Providing Agency- Specific Training, and Using Certification Programs
subsections: section_title: Government-wide Grants Management Competencies Do Not Include Competencies for Program Specialists That Some Agencies Incorporated in Their Own Models
paragraphs: We previously reported on the value of identifying competencies that are  critical to successfully achieving agency missions and goals, such as  those related to grant making, and assessing gaps in those competencies  among the workforce. Competencies describe measurable patterns of  knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an  individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions  successfully. Understood another way, competencies specify what the  person needs to do the job successfully. While there are other ways to  identify training needs, such as through individual development plans or  needs assessments, grants management competency models can be  used to establish an overall framework to guide agencies’ training efforts  as well as to provide a basis for agencies to identify critical skills gaps in  the workforce and training to address these gaps.
There have been previous efforts to develop government-wide grants  management competencies, and another is planned by COFAR for 2013.  These efforts date back to 2004 when the Chief Financial Officers  Council’s now defunct GPC formed a work group on training and  certifying the grant workforce which, according to officials in this group,  developed an initial draft set of competencies. However, after holding  discussions with OPM, the work group decided not to pursue this effort  because OPM decided to take on the task. Subsequently, in 2009, OPM  released a government-wide grants management competency model.
According to OPM officials who were involved in the effort, the model  describes functional competencies that apply across multiple job series or  occupations, similar to OPM’s crosscutting leadership competencies. In  addition to numerous general competencies, the model identified five  technical competencies specific to grants management (see table 1).  See appendix IV for the full set of OPM’s grants management  competencies. OPM’s model has served as a framework to support a  government-wide effort to assess critical skills gaps among the federal  workforce. Through that effort, the administration identified seven mission  critical competencies, and three were related to grants management.  OPM officials told us that they are consulting with OMB staff and COFAR  officials to determine a strategy for assessing skills gaps in these  competencies.
Following the release of OPM’s grants management competencies in  2009 not all grant-making agencies have embraced them. In response to  our survey, half of agency CLOs (11 of 22) reported using the OPM  competencies for purposes of identifying or developing grants training.  The agency experiences described below may provide some insight into  why some agencies have not used OPM’s competencies and also raise  questions about the sufficiency of OPM’s competencies in meeting the  needs of program specialists.
At HHS, several grant-making operating divisions told us that while they  found OPM’s competency model useful for grants management  specialists, they also needed a separate competency model for staff who  function as program specialists working with their grants management  specialists to manage grants. For example, officials in HHS’s Health  Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) noted that OPM’s  competencies were not appropriate for program specialists, so they  developed a set of program specialist competencies. While these  incorporate elements similar to OPM’s technical competencies, they also  include others that are more directly related to the employee’s specific  role in the HRSA grant program. HRSA highlights the role and authority of  program specialists in the agency as distinct from that of the grants  management specialist (series 1109 employees). In addition to  competencies specifically related to grants management, HRSA also  includes competencies related to policy analysis, research and  evaluation, and technical assistance. For example, under the “policy  analysis” competency, program specialists must be able to apply public  health knowledge to HRSA’s programs, perform policy analysis, and use  this information to develop recommendations for improving HRSA  programs or grantee performance. Under the “technical assistance”  competency, program specialists need to be able to plan and conduct  training and other activities that help grant applicants and grantees  understand and comply with grant objectives and policies. In June 2013,  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finalized a set of  competencies for program specialists which, like HRSA’s program  specialist competencies, includes competencies directly related to the  employee’s specific role in CDC grant programs.
At Education, an official told us that OPM’s single overarching grants  management competency model did not fit the agency’s culture or the  way it managed grants. Unlike HHS, Education employs program  specialists to manage grants through the entire process. Of the six job  series under which the grant workforce is classified, five are mission  critical occupations and the agency incorporates grants management  competencies into the competency models for these occupations. For  example, competencies for management and program analysts (series  343) include elements similar to the five OPM technical competencies.  Education also includes competencies demonstrating leadership in the  field and programmatic understanding and knowledge as well as technical  assistance for both management and program analysts and education  research analysts/education program specialists (series 1730/1720). An  Education official explained that the agency’s culture was resistant to a  single, one-size-fits-all approach, and that staff were concerned that such  a model would not adequately account for the technical and  programmatic expertise needed to achieve program goals. Education  used these grants management competencies as part of an agency-wide  competency gap assessment, and is using the results to develop training  to close these gaps.
A recent effort to develop government-wide grants management  competencies provides further confirmation of the importance of  developing competencies based on how agencies manage grants. In  June 2012, senior executives from across the federal government  gathered at the first meeting of the group Leading Executives Driving  Government Excellence (Leading EDGE) to examine a variety of  government-wide management issues and one issue the group selected  to address was grants training. In November of that year, the group  issued a report recommending a set of grants management  competencies. The Leading EDGE report recognized that federal  agencies target and structure their grants training depending on how they  manage grants and that this varied across agencies. Further, the report  acknowledged that some agencies assign grants management specialists  to work in conjunction with program specialists while others assign an  individual to perform both of these roles, and that grants training  competencies needed to account for this variation.
Despite its recognition of the importance of considering the different ways  that agencies manage grants when formulating a grants management  competency model, the competency model the Leading EDGE report  proposes is not significantly different from the model developed by OPM  in 2009. In fact, the Leading EDGE model consists of the same  competencies, defined in the same way, as those in OPM’s model. The  only change to the competencies is how Leading EDGE categorizes two  competencies—“planning and evaluation” and “project management.” In  the OPM model these are listed as “general” competencies, whereas  under the Leading Edge proposal, they become “technical” competencies.  The Leading EDGE report does not specifically explain how making such  a change would provide a meaningful alternative to the status quo that led  agencies like HRSA and Education to explore other approaches. This is  particularly true in light of the fact that, according to OPM officials, it is not  uncommon for agencies to reclassify competencies as appropriate for  their needs under existing competency models. So, while the Leading  EDGE report represents a useful step forward in its recognition of the  need to more fully integrate considerations related to program specialists  when thinking about grants management competencies, its proposal,  much like the current OPM model itself, is not likely to sufficiently address  the need for competencies that are more responsive to the program  specialist role.
We believe that these agency experiences, and that of Leading EDGE,  provide important information for COFAR’s consideration when  developing government-wide grants management competencies.  According to planning documents, COFAR expects to produce  government-wide grants management competencies by September 2013.  Toward this end, OMB staff told us that they have held three town hall  meetings with agency officials between August 2012 and April 2013 in  order to review COFAR’s priorities, such as developing grants  management competencies, and to obtain feedback from all federal  grant-making agencies on what COFAR should consider as it moves  forward on its priorities. Also, they engaged other stakeholders such as  professional grants associations at meetings, conferences, and on  conference calls. In addition, OMB staff said that COFAR plans to build  on Leading EDGE’s work as it develops new grants management  competencies for the federal workforce.
section_title: Agencies Have Adapted Grants Training Courses and Developed Other Training Mechanisms to Address Agency-Specific Policies and Procedures
paragraphs: We have previously reported that agencies need to provide their  workforce with training and development that is aligned with their  missions, goals, and cultures. We found that agencies provide formal  and informal grants training through classroom instruction, online  webinars, and meetings or briefings. The source of this training was  generally a combination of direct agency provision and external vendors.  According to our agency CLO survey, 7 of 22 agency CLOs responded  that all or most of their grants training was provided by their agency. In  addition, 9 of the 22 agency CLOs said they receive all or most of their  grants training from commercial or non-profit sources, and the most  common commercial provider by far was a single vendor. This vendor  offers a set of core grants management courses designed to provide  general knowledge that can be applied across the federal grants  environment. Among these is an introductory course on grants as well as  courses on cost principles, administrative requirements, and grants  monitoring.
Agencies also reported difficulties finding grants training that met all of the  needs of their grant workforce. Specifically, 13 of 22 agency CLOs  responding to our survey said that they found the availability of training  that met agency needs was at least a moderate challenge in training the  grant workforce. For example, an agency said it was challenging to find  courses that include instruction on specific statutes that authorize grant  programs. In addition, in our interviews at selected agencies, officials told  us that while external training courses were often useful in providing staff  with general grants management knowledge, it was challenging to find  courses that addressed agency or program-specific policies and  procedures.
Of the four agencies we selected for a more detailed review, some  responded to this challenge by customizing or supplementing  foundational grants training courses provided by a commercial vendor or  by developing training mechanisms, other than formal courses, for  distributing agency-specific guidance to employees. For example,  Education worked with a commercial vendor to tailor the vendor’s grants  training courses to reflect Education’s policies and procedures and  include examples and exercises specific to the agency. Although these  courses were taught by the vendor’s instructors, Education provided  subject-matter experts to guide the customization of the courses to  include agency policies and procedures. According to Education officials,  the decision to tailor these external courses was based on participant  feedback as well as their understanding of how adults process  information while learning. The agency offered the courses to one cohort  of employees in fiscal year 2011, to another cohort in fiscal year 2012,  and to two cohorts in fiscal year 2013. Each cohort consisted of 35  employees.
In contrast, at HHS, officials chose to supplement commercially available  grants training courses by developing their own grants training courses.  For example, in addition to offering program specialists a core of vendor- provided courses, during the course of this review HRSA began requiring  these employees to take three courses that the operating division  specifically developed for its own grant policies and procedures. HRSA  officials told us that while they found the commercial courses offered  beneficial foundational knowledge on grants management, the courses  did not fully address how the grants process operated at HRSA. For  example, although the commercial courses cover administrative  requirements for grants management as set by OMB, a goal of the HRSA  program specialist training is to help program specialists understand how  HHS policy relates to OMB guidance. The program specialist course  manual uses practice scenarios with specific HRSA examples to present  the reasoning behind when and which policies should supersede others.  HRSA officials told us that the program specialist training was developed,  in part, with the goal of improving customer service to grantees by  ensuring that staff receive specific training on how to manage HRSA  grants.
Each of the agencies that we selected for a detailed review also used  other approaches to impart agency-specific guidance on grant policies  and procedures to the grant workforce. For example, State used a  number of training mechanisms in addition to formal courses to train its  grant workforce both domestically and overseas. These included informal  training sessions and a variety of online information sharing. Informal  training included roundtable discussions facilitated quarterly by State’s  central grant policy office. These discussions allowed employees to share  knowledge and perspectives with their peers on topics such as monitoring  grant programs through site visits. State has several methods for sharing  information, including an online platform where employees can find the  latest information on policy guidance and regulations, grant reports, and  grant systems as well as online repositories for frequently asked  questions on agency grants policy and financial management of grants.
State officials told us that because OMB administrative guidance  generally does not apply to the overseas grant environment, the agency  has developed training for the grant workforce on agency-specific policies  and procedures. Using the training mechanisms described above,  among other training methods, agency officials said they were able to  provide employees with agency-specific training as issues arose and,  through the use of online information sharing, easily reach those in the  overseas bureaus.
On a government-wide level, COFAR plans to provide training on grants  management core competencies by September 2014. Toward that end,  OMB staff told us that COFAR has solicited feedback in town hall  meetings with grant-making agencies, explored potential options for  training venues, and is having HHS take the lead for COFAR in this effort.
section_title: Agency Experiences with Establishing Grants Management Certification Programs Illustrate the Usefulness of Tailoring Certification to Fit Roles and Responsibilities and the Value of Leadership Commitment
paragraphs: Certification programs are designed to ensure that individuals attain the  knowledge and skills required to perform in a particular occupation or role  by establishing consistent standards. Requirements for certification often  include some amount of professional experience, continuing education,  and successful completion of an assessment process that measures an  individual’s mastery of knowledge and skills against a set of standards.  Internal control standards for agencies state that management should  identify the appropriate knowledge and skills, provide training, and  establish a mechanism to help ensure that all employees receive  appropriate training as part of establishing a control environment. One  internal control mechanism agencies have used is to develop certification  programs to help ensure that staff demonstrate a level of competence in a  particular field critical to the agencies’ missions and goals.
Although not required government-wide, many agencies require or  recommend grants management certifications in order to help ensure  sound management practices across the agencies’ grant workforce.  Twenty-three percent (5 of 22) of agency CLOs responding to our survey  reported that their agency requires some type of grants management  certification and 73 percent (16 of 22) either require or recommend  certification. The 16 agencies that either require or recommend grants  management certification most often chose the following as one of the top  three reasons why they do so:  to ensure compliance with grants management regulations (15 of 16  agencies);  to ensure accountability of grant funds (12 of 16 agencies); and  to ensure uniform knowledge (11 of 16 agencies).
The experiences of agencies that have established certification programs  suggest some broader lessons for establishing grants management  certification standards government-wide that apply to the entire grant  workforce. Two of the four agencies we selected for a more detailed  review—State and HHS—have developed certification programs. State  has implemented certification programs for all grants officers and, as of  January 2013, for all grants officer representatives. To earn the grants  officer certification employees must complete grants training, possess  specific levels of education or experience, and comply with a continuing  education requirement. To earn the grants officer representative  certification employees must complete specific grants training and comply  with a continuing education requirement.  HHS developed an agency- wide certification program for grants management specialists, but only  some of its operating divisions have implemented it. The certification  program has four levels for grants management specialists, each of which  requires staff to either complete specific training or to obtain an increasing  amount of on-the-job experience. Several operating divisions also require  that program specialists take some grants training, and one operating  division is proposing a separate required certification program for  program specialists.
One lesson that agency experiences suggest is the importance of clearly  defining the roles and responsibilities of a diverse grant workforce and  then appropriately tailoring certification standards in order to ensure that  all key personnel in the grant workforce have appropriate and consistent  knowledge to fulfill their roles. For example, State identified two key roles  in its grants management process—grants officers and grants officer  representatives—and tailored separate certifications for these roles.
Certified grants officers (e.g., grants management specialists) issue  federal grant awards up to a specified value depending on the level of  certification. As the value of grant awards increases, the amount of  training required for the certification also increases. All levels of grants  officer certification require completion of a certain number of training  hours every 3 years in order to renew the certification. Grants officer  representatives are program specialists who oversee the programmatic  and technical aspects of the grant. They are appointed by grants officers  and must complete two grants management courses before obtaining the  grants officer representative certification. All grants officer representatives  must update their training with additional grants training every 3 years. In  2007, we reported that State had inconsistent training and skills  requirements for the grant workforce, and that State officials were  concerned about the agency’s ability to effectively manage its grants and  other foreign assistance. Agency officials told us that the grants officer  representative certification was implemented in January 2013, to address  inconsistencies in training for grants officer representatives across the  agency.
In another example, HHS’s guidance on its agency-wide certification  program recognizes the important role that program specialists play in the  technical, scientific, and programmatic aspects of grants. The guidance  states that since program specialists work in partnership with grants  management specialists, they should complete an orientation course in  grants administration that emphasizes the program specialist’s role in the  grants management process. Completion of this orientation course in  conjunction with joint nomination by the supervising program and grant  officials results in certification as a program specialist. The guidance  encourages program specialists to take further grants training, but does  not require them to complete the grants management certification.
Another lesson illustrated by agency experiences in this area is the  importance of ongoing leadership commitment and having a mechanism  in place to track the implementation of training requirements. HHS  developed an agency-wide professional certification program for the grant  workforce in 1995, but the program was not fully implemented even  though operating divisions were required to do so by guidance and an  agency policy directive. We found that a limited number of grant-making  operating divisions (4 of the 13) had taken action to implement the  required certification program. Grant officials in HHS’s operating  divisions told us that the program was inconsistently implemented  because of changes in agency-level leadership and lack of enforcement.  Other officials said that without enforcement of the certification  requirement or updated agency-wide training guidance for grants  management it was a challenge to obtain the resources needed and  identify courses for training the grant workforce. Another potential factor  contributing to uneven implementation was that HHS did not track most  staff completion of the grants management certifications agency-wide,  although operating divisions tracked staff completion where the  requirement was enforced. Agency officials told us that they did track  certification completion for those meeting the requirements of the highest  certification level reserved for chief grants management officers, a  position typically filled by members of the Senior Executive Service.  According to these officials, the operating divisions at HHS nominate staff  to receive the chief grants management officer certification and the  agency-level grants policy division authorizes it. In contrast, State tracked  whether staff completed requirements for its grants certifications in a  database maintained by the Office of the Procurement Executive. Officials  told us the system’s visibility is a useful monitoring tool that encourages  staff to complete the certification program in a timely manner.
We believe that the lessons from these two agencies that have developed  certification programs provide important information for COFAR’s  consideration. On a government-wide level, COFAR has identified the  need to ensure a consistent knowledge base and professionalize the  grant workforce through developing certification standards by September  2015. OMB staff told us that they are looking into a multi-agency effort to  develop a grants management certification that is being led by the  Departments of Commerce and Energy. OMB staff also said they have  had initial discussions on certification standards with professional grants  associations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the importance of grants as a tool to achieve federal objectives and  the large outlays the federal government makes to fund them each year, it  is critical that the people who manage these grants—the federal grant  workforce—be well-trained to handle their responsibilities. A key first step  in this process is to have a clear understanding of the different ways  agencies manage their grant processes and the wide variety of  employees involved. A robust understanding of the diverse types of  employees that make up the grant workforce and the key roles they carry  out provides a foundation for the development of an effective  government-wide grants training strategy.
In November 2012, COFAR identified the federal government’s need to  develop a qualified and professional grant workforce as one of its top  priorities in the coming years. Toward that end, it announced a series of  goals including the creation of government-wide grants competencies,  training, and certification standards. As COFAR moves forward with plans  to develop such standards, its efforts would benefit from considering the  experiences of federal agencies in areas such as the development of  grants management competencies and certification programs. Several  agencies we reviewed found competencies to be a useful tool for  structuring and identifying training needs. However, to fully support the  agencies’ grant-making missions and goals, the competencies need to  address two key roles in the grant workforce: grants management  specialists and program specialists. Although OPM’s competency model  appears to largely address the former, the experiences of agencies we  reviewed suggest that the model was not directly applicable for program  specialists involved in the grants process. Recognizing this gap, agencies  took a variety of approaches including developing their own competency  models for program specialists or finding ways to incorporate specific  grants management competencies into existing competency models.  Based on these agency experiences, future government-wide  competencies that do not address the program specialist role will likely  not be fully adopted by grant-making agencies.
Similar to agency experiences with competencies, some agencies have  developed certification programs that have unique requirements  depending on the role of the individual as either a grants management  specialist or a program specialist. At one agency, for example, by  developing a certification program that specifies a standard training  curriculum and other requirements for both key roles in the grant  workforce, the agency helped to ensure that key members of its grant  workforce have appropriate levels of proficiency. Future government-wide  certification standards that do not distinguish between the grants  management specialist role and the program specialist role will likely not  be fully adopted for the entire grant workforce by all grant-making  agencies. As COFAR crafts government-wide standards for grants  training, agency experiences highlight the importance of defining the roles  of the grant workforce.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: As COFAR works to professionalize the federal grant workforce, we  recommend that the Director of OMB, in collaboration with COFAR, take  the following two actions:  1.  Include the program specialist role as COFAR develops a  government-wide grants management competency model. This could  be done by developing a separate model for program specialists or  revising the existing grants management model so that it incorporates  additional competencies for program specialists.  2.  Distinguish between the grants management specialist role and the  program specialist role as COFAR establishes government-wide  certification standards for the federal grant workforce.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of the Departments of  Education, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation; and to  the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of  Personnel Management. OMB staff provided oral comments and  concurred with our findings and recommendations. OMB staff, Education,  HHS, and DOT also provided technical comments on the draft that we  incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretaries of the Departments of Education, Health and Human  Services, State, and Transportation, and the Directors of the Office of  Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. In  addition, the report will be available on our web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6806 or by email at czerwinskis@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made  major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In order to better understand how the federal workforce responsible for  managing grants is trained, and what challenges and good practices  exist, we (1) described the federal grant workforce at selected agencies  and analyzed the challenge of identifying the workforce government-wide;  and (2) examined selected good practices agencies used and challenges,  if any, they faced in training the grant workforce, as well as potential  implications of these practices and challenges for government-wide  efforts to develop grants training standards.
To obtain a broad view of how the grant workforce is trained government- wide, we reviewed relevant federal laws and administrative guidance and  conducted a survey of chief learning officers (CLO) at the 24 Chief  Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies. The survey questionnaire included  questions on grants-specific training, certification, administration and  development of training, and challenges and good practices in training the  grant workforce. Two agencies, the General Services Administration and  the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), were dropped from our  survey after officials in those agencies stated that they did not have any  personnel actively working on grants. Each of the remaining 22 agencies  responded to the survey, resulting in a 100 percent response rate from  CFO Act agencies with an active grant workforce. The questionnaires  were sent to the CLOs but they were asked to share them, as needed,  with other knowledgeable agency staff in order to provide an informed  response. Agencies were asked to return a single questionnaire that best  represented their practices and challenges as a whole. Four agencies  returned multiple questionnaires from sub-agency components. To  address this, we developed a methodology for combining responses in  order to formulate an agency-wide response. We also conducted follow- up conversations with agencies to clarify responses or collect additional  details.
To obtain illustrative examples of experiences, challenges, and good  practices in training the grant workforce, we conducted additional reviews  at four agencies. We selected these agencies from among the 22 CFO  Act agencies with an active grant workforce after considering the  agencies’ total grant obligations, number of grant programs, and number  of discrete grants awarded (using fiscal year 2011 USASpending.gov  data). In addition, in making our selections we considered whether an  agency had grants training or certification requirements, any good grants  training practices as identified by its CLO, the existence of significant  issues regarding grants or training as reported in our prior work, the  number of grant-making operating divisions, the variety of grant types  (formula, block, and project), major grant issue areas (such as health,  education, and transportation) and functional areas (such as service  delivery, construction, and research). The scope of this review was limited  to federal grants and did not include cooperative agreements or other  types of federal assistance. We selected agencies that administered a  large majority of federal grant obligations and also collectively  represented a range of positions on these other criteria. The four  agencies we selected—the Departments of Education (Education), Health  and Human Services (HHS), State (State), and Transportation (DOT)— account for over 84 percent of the federal government’s total grant dollars  obligated in fiscal year 2012, manage all three major grant types, and  cover a broad range of grant issue areas. At each of these agencies, we  reviewed documents including training materials and grants policy  directives and interviewed training officials. We interviewed agency-level  grants and training officials at each agency, and at the agencies we  selected where grants training is generally managed at the sub-agency  level—HHS, Education, and DOT—we also interviewed officials at  selected sub-agencies. These sub-agency components were selected  using criteria similar to that detailed above for agency selection. We also  collected information on training courses, their costs, and the grant  workforce at both the agency-level as well as all grant-making sub- agency components.
Since the focus of our work was to better understand and provide  information on how the federal government trains its grant workforce, we  conducted our reviews at each selected agency to identify examples of  grants training experiences, challenges, and good practices, and not to  audit their grants training programs. Accordingly, we did not seek to make  an evaluative judgment of the specific grants training programs at the four  selected agencies nor assess the prevalence of the practices or  challenges we cite either within or across the four agencies. Agencies  and sub-agency components other than those cited for a particular  practice may or may not also be engaged in the same practices. While  the responses and comments provided on our survey reflect the views of  the CLOs at 22 of the CFO Act agencies, the examples of good training  practices and challenges we identified are from the four selected  agencies and are therefore not generalizable to other agencies. To  examine good practices that agencies use in training the grant workforce,  we used criteria from our work on strategic training and workforce  planning in the federal government, internal control standards for training,  and OPM guidance.
To describe the federal grant workforce and the challenge of identifying  the workforce government-wide, we collected workforce data from the  four case example agencies, reviewed data on the grants management  specialist job series 1109, and interviewed officials at OPM. We  requested data from our four case example agencies on the makeup of  their grant workforce. To identify their grant workforce, cognizant grant  officials at the agency or sub-agency component level generally made  judgments regarding which employees to include and then used agency  personnel databases to access job series data associated with those  identified. To assess the reliability of these data, we examined the  workforce data provided by the agencies for anomalies. This included  obtaining data on the total number of federal employees in the 1109  grants management specialist series for each of the four selected  agencies from FedScope. We then compared the numbers of 1109  series employees reported by the agencies to the data in FedScope in  order to confirm the data collected from the agencies for the 1109 series.  Only minor differences in the total number of series 1109 employees were  noted and this was expected due to the 4-month difference in the time  frames covered by the data. We also interviewed officials at OPM to  discuss the development of the 1109 job series for grants management  specialists and challenges associated with grant workforce identification.  Based on our tests and discussions with agency officials, we determined  that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To  obtain broad views on how the grant workforce is trained government- wide, we interviewed officials at the Office of Management and Budget  and OPM. To understand the efforts of the Council on Financial  Assistance Reform we reviewed documents produced by the Council and  interviewed staff at OMB.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 through June 2013,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Overview of Grants Training at the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation
subsections: section_title: Department of Education
subsections: section_title: General Overview
paragraphs: The Department of Education (Education) is the third largest federal  grant-making agency in total value of funding, administering  approximately $44 billion in grants in fiscal year 2012. The agency  administers formula, block, and project grants through eight program  offices (see table 2). These grants support the nation’s schools and  students through programs such as Title I, Impact Aid, and Special  Education.
Grants training is managed at both the agency- and program-office level.  Program offices within Education have the option of setting training  requirements for their grant workforce and grants training is required in  three of the agency’s eight grant-making program offices. Training  requirements generally consist of several courses in grants management.  On an agency-wide level, only one course is required; this course focuses  on discretionary grant license holders. In addition to grants training  courses, other related training opportunities offered by Education include  informal brown bag sessions, mentoring, and on-the-job training.
As of December 2012, Education officials estimated their total grant  workforce to be approximately 761 employees, out of a total of more than  4,200 employees. The agency has no employees classified in the grants  management specialist series because it uses program specialists to  manage the entire grant process and because of essential job  requirements of the six job series in which the program specialists are  currently classified (see appendix III for a complete breakdown of the  Education grant workforce by job series).
section_title: Selected Grants Management Training Practices
subsections: section_title: Grants Management Competencies and Assessing Training Needs
paragraphs: According to an Education official and agency documentation, the agency  incorporates grants management competencies in the competency  models for at least five of six job series which comprise the grant  workforce. For example, technical competencies for management and  program analysts (series 343) include proficiency in formula and  discretionary grants and grant monitoring, as well as demonstrating  programmatic understanding and knowledge.
Competencies are also used to identify training needs through a  competency assessment for mission critical occupations; five of these  occupations were positions that Education identified as being part of the  grant workforce. For example, Education’s fiscal year 2011 assessment  determined that proficiency gaps existed in fiscal monitoring; policy,  legislation, and administrative rulemaking; and audit-related  competencies. The agency developed a strategy to close those gaps  through formal classroom training as well as web-based training and  informal seminars on the topics identified. A grants training official told us  that several of these courses are available and more are being developed  to be offered in fiscal year 2013.
In addition to the agency-wide competency assessment, one program  office, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, conducted its  own learning needs analysis through a contractor in 2012. This analysis  assessed the learning needs for two positions, one of which was a grants  specialist. The assessment was conducted through a survey of non- supervisory staff within the program office, who were asked to indicate  the importance of tasks or content knowledge to their day-to-day work  and the type of professional development desired in the next year. As a  result of this learning needs assessment, a program office official  reported that data analysis courses were procured to support professional  development among staff members. This official also told us that while  the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education plans to contract for a  learning needs assessment every 3 years, they also have developed a  tool for managers and staff to use annually in between external  assessments in order to help grants specialists prepare their individual  development plans.
section_title: Grants Training
paragraphs: The agency requires one grants training course agency-wide; this annual  one-hour briefing is intended for those employees holding a discretionary  grant license, which allows them to obligate and award grant funds.  According to an Education official, the annual briefing is designed to  provide license holders an update on legislative and regulatory  developments that impact the agency’s grants administration policies.  The briefing also offers license holders an opportunity to share best  practices, common concerns, and recommendations on how to improve  the grants process.
In another agency-wide effort, according to agency officials, Education  worked with a commercial vendor in 2010 to develop and customize a  curriculum of eight grants management courses that lead to a grants  management training certificate. Topics covered by the courses include  grants monitoring, cost principles, administrative requirements, and  accountability. These courses are offered to cohorts of 35 employees and  each of the agency’s program offices receives a certain number of slots in  each cohort. Given criteria from the central learning and development  office, it is the responsibility of the program offices to determine which of  their employees are substantially involved in grants administration and  management and would most benefit from the grants management  curriculum. By offering the eight courses to cohorts of employees,  Education officials told us that they saved over $64,000 per cohort, or 31  percent of the cost to provide the courses to 35 employees individually in  fiscal year 2013.
As reported by officials in each grant-making program office, 3 of 8  program offices at Education require grants training and 7 of 8 do offer  grants training courses or other training opportunities to the grant  workforce. For example, the Office of Innovation and Improvement offers  an on-boarding program for new staff that includes courses on grants  management and grants monitoring. In addition to these courses, this  office holds internal brown bag sessions and a speaker series to address  grant issues.
According to agency officials, Education does not require a grants  management certification.  Although it does offer training that leads to a  grants management certificate, it does not offer a grants management  certification program for its grant workforce.
Officials in Education’s program offices, as well as officials in the  centralized offices that offer training, told us that to evaluate Education’s  grants training courses offered in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 they  collected information on participant satisfaction for a majority of the  courses offered.  Many officials did not respond or did not know if they  collected information for other types of evaluation.  However, those that  did respond reported that they collected information on knowledge gained  for more than half of courses offered and did not collect information on  the impact on individual behavior or return on investment for any courses  offered.
Education officials said they plan to begin collecting information on the  impact of the commercial vendor-provided courses that make up their  grants management training certificate on individual and organizational  performance in the summer of 2013. To assess this training, Education  expects to distribute a survey to training participants as well as their  supervisors. Based on a prototype we obtained for review, the survey will  ask about the extent to which training has been applied on the job as well  as the courses’ impacts on grants management performance and  achieving organizational grants management goals.
In addition to measuring the impact of individual courses, Education  officials told us that they measure the impact of training on performance  through multi-year analysis of the results of the biennial mission critical  occupations competency assessment. The assessment measures the  current and desired proficiency of employees in particular competencies  and allows Education to target proficiency gaps for closure. According to  these officials, assessment of proficiency gaps helps them to understand  the developmental needs of the workforce and then provide training that  targets these needs. By examining changes in workforce proficiencies  over multiple years, Education hopes to assess the effectiveness of its  training curricula.
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services
subsections: section_title: General Overview
paragraphs: HHS is the largest federal grant-making agency in terms of total federal  grant funds, administering approximately $333 billion in grants during  fiscal year 2012. Formula, block, and project grants are administered  across 13 operating divisions within HHS (see table 3). These grants  support medical services and research including Medicaid, Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families, Head Start, health centers, medical  research, and preventive health services. Grants training is managed by  the operating divisions, with general training standards and guidance  offered through the Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and  Accountability’s division of grants. Training in grants management is  required for at least part of the grant workforce in 11 of 13 operating  divisions, and these requirements range from a set of courses to  professional development activities toward earning a certification in grants  management.
HHS officials in each of the 13 operating divisions that administer grants,  as well as officials in the agency’s Division of Grants, estimated the total  grant workforce to be approximately 2,166 employees, out of a total  workforce of over 86,500. All HHS grant-making operating divisions have  at least some employees classified in the grants management  occupational series (1109). These grants management specialists work  with program specialists to manage grants.
section_title: Selected Grants Management Training Practices
subsections: section_title: Grants Management Competencies and Assessing Training Needs
paragraphs: HHS does not have agency-wide competencies for the grant workforce,  however several operating divisions at HHS reported having grants  management competencies to support their training efforts. These  competency models vary across each operating division. One operating  division, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), reported  applying OPM’s grants management competency model directly, while  several others had a subset of competencies similar to that included in  OPM’s model. Three agencies, the Health Resources and Services  Administration (HRSA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  (CDC), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and  Response (ASPR) identified separate competency models for program  specialists.
At HHS, officials in several operating divisions told us that they use both  competencies and individual development plans or assessments to  determine training needs. For example, HRSA conducted a training  needs assessment that highlighted areas for additional training in grants  management. Based on this and the identification of program specialists  as being critical to the grants management process, HRSA developed a  training program for program specialists that will support a certification  requirement that officials expect to implement in fiscal year 2013. HRSA  officials told us that they are working toward developing a similar program  for grants management specialists.
According to agency officials, HHS does not require any agency-wide  grants training, however, all operating divisions at HHS reported offering  grants training to their grant workforce with 85 percent (11 of 13) of HHS  operating divisions requiring some amount of training. Training courses  offered include general grants management training courses that cover  topics such as OMB circulars, cost principles, and monitoring. In addition,  the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and HRSA have developed  customized training specific to their operating divisions and grants.  According to officials and documentation, NIH requires a month-long  orientation to grants management and HRSA developed a three-course  introduction to grants management. Several operating divisions offer  informal training courses, webinars or other sessions to address current  topics or specific issues. For example, the Administration for Children and  Families (ACF) reported offering several informal courses including one  on child welfare/child support and another on Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families fiscal management.
While HHS developed policy and guidance that required agency-wide  certification of its grant workforce in 1995, only four of its operating  divisions have taken steps to implement it. Two of the 13 HHS operating  divisions—NIH and the Indian Health Service—required grants  management specialists to be certified in grants management, while ACF  offers its certification program as an option to grants management  specialists. Officials in the Food and Drug Administration have developed  a proposal for a similar certification program and told us that they plan to  implement it in fiscal year 2014. Each of these certification programs is  based upon the agency-wide Grants Management Professional  Development program established by HHS in 1995. This program was not  widely enforced due to changes in leadership, but the requirement still  resides in the agency’s Grants Policy Directives and Awarding Agency  Grants Administration Manual. In addition to these four certification  programs for grants management specialists, HRSA is developing a  required certification program for program specialists that will be fully  implemented in fiscal year 2013. Once the program specialist certification  is in place, HRSA officials told us that they plan to develop a similar  certification for grants management specialists. Finally, five operating  divisions require their grants management specialists to complete a set of  grants management courses from an external vendor, although they do  not have the certification program in place. These same courses are an  integral part of the certification program that the four operating divisions  described above have implemented or proposed.
While the agency-wide certification program has not been fully  implemented across all operating divisions, HHS officials told us that they  have an agency-wide certification process in place for those meeting the  requirements of the highest certification level—an operating division’s  chief grants management officer. In addition, in the years after the  certification program was developed, officials told us that the agency  provided grants training courses both internally through HHS University  as well as through an external vendor to make grants training available to  the operating divisions.
HHS operating divisions, as well as the agency’s Division of Grants,  reported that to evaluate their grants training courses offered in fiscal  years 2011 and 2012 they  collected information on participant satisfaction for a majority of the  courses offered,  collected information on knowledge gained in over half of the courses  offered, and did not collect information on the impact on individual behavior or  return on investment for any courses offered.
However, officials explained that while they understand that information  gathered on participant satisfaction for courses taken by commercial  vendors is available from the vendor for review, these results are typically  not requested by the agency.
section_title: Department of State
subsections: section_title: General Overview
paragraphs: The Department of State (State) administered over $511 million in project  grants in fiscal year 2012. These grants fund a variety of assistance  programs worldwide, including those supporting Democracy, Human  Rights and Labor; Weapons Removal and Abatement; Professional,  Cultural, and Educational Exchange Programs; Public Diplomacy  Programs around the world including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan;  Combating Human Trafficking; and Refugee Assistance, among others  (see table 4).
At State, training of the grant workforce is managed at the agency level  through the Office of the Procurement Executive (A/OPE). A/OPE sets  training requirements for the grant workforce and collaborates with the  Foreign Service Institute to help ensure that training courses are  appropriately developed and delivered. Additional training on financial  management of grants is developed by the Office of Federal Assistance  Financial Management. Training and certification is required for all grants  officers and grants officer representatives. While training for grants is  centrally managed, each grant may be managed by a single or multiple  bureaus depending on the type of assistance being provided. For  instance, for grants that support a particular country or region, such as  Iraq Assistance Programs, multiple bureaus may manage the funds to  support a range of assistance programs. On the other hand, if the grant  supports assistance in a particular program, such as educational  exchanges, a single bureau, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural  Affairs, may manage most or all of the funds.
At State, agency policy states that grants are managed by warranted  grants officers who are authorized to award grants up to a specified  amount. Grants officers appoint grants officer representatives (GOR) to  assist with technical and programmatic aspects of the grant. These two  positions correspond to the grants management specialist and program  specialist, respectively, as described in our report. In addition, financial  management officers assist with fiscal management aspects of the grants  process. State estimated that there are approximately 605 grants officers,  most of whom are stationed overseas. In addition, 280 positions,  including financial management officers, support those grants officers at  overseas posts and in bureaus domestically. The GOR certification  program was effective as of January 2013 and GORs had up to six  months to meet the certification requirements, thus State did not yet have  a complete accounting of all certified GORs at the time of publication. A  full accounting is expected by late summer 2013 when all GORs are  required to be certified and registered in State’s database that tracks both  certified grants officers and GORs.
The grant workforce consists primarily of Foreign Service officers serving  in posts around the world. State officials explained that, at these posts,  not all Foreign Service officers work on grants, but those that do are  responsible for multiple tasks, including managing grants. As a result,  there are a lot of personnel that work on grants, and for many of the 740  Foreign Service officers identified as part of the grant workforce, grant- related tasks are a part-time responsibility.
section_title: Selected Grants Management Training Practices
subsections: section_title: Grants Management Competencies and Assessing Training Needs
paragraphs: State officials told us that, during the time of this review, they did not use  grants management competencies for the purposes of identifying training.  Beyond the required training and certification for grants officers and  GORs, these officials explained that they assess any additional training  needs as needed through management reviews. For instance, after  review of grants administration at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural  Affairs, it was determined that the grant workforce was lacking expertise  in several areas. To address the specific training needs of the bureau’s  employees, A/OPE developed training for the bureau that augmented the  formal training courses.
State requires all grants officers and GORs to complete training in grants  management. Course topics include an introduction to grants and  cooperative agreements, an introduction to monitoring grants, and ethics.  As State officials explained, some of the required training courses were  developed within the agency because the general training available from  commercial vendors did not meet the needs of their staff. For example,  most of State’s grant recipients are foreign organizations, and the training  from commercial vendors does not include specific grants management  scenarios that staff are likely to encounter with foreign grant recipients.  State officials told us that because OMB administrative guidance does not  apply to the overseas grant environment the agency trains the grant  workforce on agency-specific policies and procedures. After designing its  own courses, State was also able to offer the course through a distance- learning system that allowed grants officers and GORs overseas to  access the training.
In addition to formal training courses, State offers informal training to its  grant workforce through a variety of mechanisms. These include informal  training sessions and a variety of online information sharing. For example,  officials told us that, at quarterly meetings facilitated by State’s central  grants policy office, roundtable discussions allow employees to share  knowledge and perspectives with their peers on topics such as monitoring  grant programs through site visits. Officials told us that State has several  methods for sharing information, including an online platform where  employees can find the latest information on policy guidance and  regulations, grant reports, and grant systems as well as online  repositories for frequently asked questions on agency grants policy and  financial management of grants.
As described in the agency’s grants policy directives, State has  implemented two certification programs—one for grants officers and the  other for GORs. Both certifications require completion of specific grants  training and have continuing education requirements. The grants officer  certification also requires certain levels of education or experience.  Certified grants officers are warranted to issue federal grant awards up to  a specified value depending on the level of certification. As the value of  grant award increases, the amount of training required for the certification  also increases. All levels of grants officer certification require completion  of a certain number of training hours every 3 years in order to renew the  certification. GORs must complete two grants management courses  before obtaining the grants officer representative certification. After  certification the GOR is eligible to be designated to a specific agreement  by the grants officers. In addition, all GORs must update their training with  additional grants training every 3 years. The grants officer representative  certification was implemented in January 2013 to help address  inconsistencies in the level of training for grants officer representatives  across the agency. Staff completion of both grants certification  requirements is tracked in a database maintained by the Office of the  Procurement Executive.
State officials reported that to evaluate grants training courses offered in  fiscal years 2011 and 2012 they  collected information on participant satisfaction for all four of the  grants management courses offered,  collected information on knowledge gained in one of these courses,  and did not collect information on the impact on individual behavior or  return on investment for any courses offered.
Officials indicated that the feedback they received from participants on  commercial vendor courses is what prompted them to develop  customized courses to reflect State grants management practices and  scenarios.
section_title: Department of Transportation
subsections: section_title: General Overview
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation (DOT) is the second largest federal  grant-making agency in total value of federal grant funds, administering  approximately $52 billion in grants in fiscal year 2012. Formula and  project grants are administered across 10 operating administrations within  DOT (see table 5). These grants support the nation’s highways, mass  transit systems, railroads, and airports through programs such as  Highway Planning and Construction and the Airport Improvement  Program.
While the Financial Assistance Policy and Oversight Office issues  agency-wide communications on general training requirements and works  with OMB on government-wide training efforts, grants training is managed  by the 10 grant-making operating administrations. The operating  administrations have the option of setting grants training requirements,  and requirements exist in 7 of the 10 operating administrations. These  requirements range from a single course to a set of courses that lead to a  grants management certificate. In addition to grants training courses  required or offered, other training opportunities offered by operating  administrations to address grant issues include online webinars, internal  brown bags, working groups, and on-the-job training.
DOT officials in each of the 10 grant-making operating administrations  estimated the total grant workforce to be approximately 1,313 employees  and the total workforce at the agency is over 57,000 employees. The  agency has only one employee classified in the 1109 grants management  series because it employs program specialists to manage the entire  grants process. However, in the course of our review, one operating  administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),  established a grants management office and hired employees in the 1109  grants management series to support this office. Program specialists at  DOT are classified in more than 30 different job series (see appendix III  for a complete breakdown of the DOT grant workforce by job series).
section_title: Selected Grants Management Training Practices
subsections: section_title: Grants Management Competencies and Assessing Training Needs
paragraphs: While DOT does not have agency-wide competencies for the grant  workforce, operating administrations use other methods to identify  training needs for the grant workforce. For example, officials at the Office  of Airports in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) told us that they  use the FAA Human Resource Policy Manual and a standardized job  analysis tool to help supervisors identify and prioritize appropriate training  for employees’ individual development plans. In broader efforts to assess  training needs, a Federal Transit Administration official told us that they  have contracted with a private company to conduct a comprehensive  training needs assessment and develop a 3-year plan to address the  training needs. One operating administration, the National Highway  Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), told us that they have draft grants  management competencies that are scheduled for finalization by the end  of fiscal year 2013. According to NHTSA officials, the competencies will  be used to conduct periodic assessments, identify training needs, and  develop individual development plans.
According to agency officials, DOT does not require any agency-wide  grants training, however, all of the grant-making operating administrations  at DOT offer grants training to their grant workforce and 70 percent (7 of  10) of the operating administrations require some amount of grants  training. Training courses offered, according to operating administration  officials, include general grants management training, such as courses on  OMB circulars, costs principles, and monitoring, as well as customized  training specific to the operating administrations’ grant programs,  including FMCSA’s 3-day grants management manual training, the  Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) online training courses on  planning and research grants, and the Office of Airports’ 3-day course on  airport financial assistance, provided by the FAA Academy. External  vendors as well as the agency provide grants training at the operating  administrations. Agency-provided grants training is developed by subject- matter experts within the operating administrations or by agency-affiliated  training institutes. For example, for FHWA, the National Highway Institute  has developed a series of web-based and classroom courses on planning  and research grants. Topics covered in this series include common grant  rules, grant administration, cost principles, and audits.
DOT employs program specialists to manage the entire grant process  and, operating administrations provide training on both programmatic and  technical aspects of grants as well as on general grants management.  For example, officials at FAA’s Office of Airports told us that their grant  workforce needed highly specific technical and professional knowledge,  skills, and abilities related to airport planning, engineering, construction,  and operational and environmental matters. The Office of Airports used  courses from the FAA Academy to provide training that hones the  technical knowledge of its grant workforce.
DOT operating administrations use methods other than formal courses to  train the grant workforce. For example, a FMCSA official said that they  have conducted webinars on specific grant issues such as audits and  indirect costs. These webinars are recorded and posted to the operating  administration’s website for others to view. In another example, a FHWA  official told us that in addition to formal classroom instruction they  encourage other training methods such as on-the-job training, working  one-on-one with a team leader, and self-paced learning through  instructional resources, such as the DOT Financial Assistance Guidance  Manual, on agency websites.
According to agency officials, DOT did not have an agency-wide  requirement of a grants management certification for the grant workforce.  Also, although some operating administrations offered training that leads  to a grants management certificate, none of the operating administrations  required certification for their grant workforce.
DOT operating administrations reported that to evaluate their grants  training courses offered in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 they  collected information on participant satisfaction for a majority of the  courses offered,  collected information on knowledge gained in less than half of the  courses offered,  collected information on the impact on individual behavior for seven  grants training courses, offered by NHTSA, and did not collect information on return on investment for any courses  offered.
In order to assess the impact of training on individual behavior, officials at  NHTSA told us that for grants training courses provided by the  Transportation Safety Institute, course participants receive an evaluation  form 90 days after they take the course. This evaluation asks, among  other questions, what the participants have learned from the courses that  has impacted their performance at work and if the courses have better  equipped them to plan, develop, and implement highway safety  programs. The information collected through the evaluations is not  systematically analyzed beyond a basic review although the comments  are considered when updating course curricula, according to NHTSA  officials.
section_title: Appendix III: Grant Workforce by Job Series for the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation as of June 2013
subsections: section_title: Series number 1109
section_title: Appendix IV: OPM Grants Management Competency Model
paragraphs: The following competency model was released by OPM in September  2009. According to OPM officials, the model was developed using their  standard approach, known as the Multipurpose Occupational Systems  Analysis Inventory–Close Ended method. This included several  procedures such as announcing the intent to study competencies for the  grant workforce, collecting information from agencies, performing  environmental scans, speaking with subject-matter experts to refine the  competencies and job tasks, and surveying the workforce on which  competencies are appropriate for different grades of the grant workforce.  In addition, the officials told us that they worked with OMB’s Grants Policy  Committee to help ensure that the survey employed a common language  that the grant workforce across the federal government would  understand.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Peter Del Toro, Assistant  Director; Erin Saunders Rath; and Shelby Kain made key contributions to  all aspects of the report. Vida Awumey, Thomas Beall, Penny Berrier, Jill  Center, Gus J. Crosetto, Beryl H. Davis, R. Eli DeVan, Debra A. Draper,  Alexandra Edwards, Robert Gebhart, George Guttman, Melissa King,  Belva M. Martin, Kimberly McGatlin, Rebecca Rose, Michelle B.  Rosenberg, and Stuart Kauffman also provided assistance. In addition,  Amy Bowser provided legal support and Donna Miller developed the  report’s graphics.