The federal government has established a policy to develop employees, including its SES, through training and development programs in order to improve public service, increase efficiency and economy, and build and retain a force of skilled and efficient employees, among other things. Under 5 U.S.C. § 3396, OPM is responsible for establishing training and development programs for SES and SES candidates, or for requiring agencies to establish such programs that meet OPM criteria. If agencies establish these training programs, 5 U.S.C. § 3396(b) states that OPM is required to assist agencies in the establishment of such programs and monitor their implementation. In accordance with this, OPM has issued regulations on training and management development. For example, in 2006 OPM issued a regulation requiring agencies to report training expenditures to OPM through the government-wide electronic reporting system. Executive Order No. 11348 (issued in 1967 and later amended by Executive Order No. 12107 in 1978) further requires OPM to assist agencies in developing sound programs and financial plans for training and to provide advice, information, and assistance to agencies on planning, programming, budgeting, operating, and evaluating training programs. OPM provides federal agencies with assistance through two primary mechanisms: guidance documents and technical assistance (see table 1 below). Executive training courses are one part of a foundation of executive education programs that include coaching and rotational assignments to help executives understand leadership roles and responsibilities in their respective agencies. OPM reviews and certifies agencies’ SES candidate development programs (CDPs), which are designed to train potential SES members. OPM also convenes Qualifications Review Boards (QRBs), staffed by SES members across government, to provide an independent peer review of candidates proposed for initial career appointment to the SES. The 26 CHCO Council agencies responding to our questionnaire reported that, from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, they spent almost $57 million (in constant 2012 dollars) for about 30,000 participants to attend executive training courses offered by external providers. On average, the agencies collectively reported spending between $9 and $15 million dollars a year (in constant dollars) on external executive training over the 5-year period. The 26 CHCO agencies reported using at least 410 external providers from fiscal years 2008 to 2012 for executive training. Among the external providers most often used, CHCO agencies reported using OPM’s Federal Executive Institute (FEI) more than other external providers (see table 2). OPM requires agencies to maintain records of training plans, expenditures, and activities, and to submit the recorded data to OPM. Since 2006, OPM has required agencies to report training data to OPM monthly via OPM’s EHRI system. OPM’s Guide to Human Resources Reporting states that these data should include training materials cost, per diem cost, travel cost, and tuition and fees. Further, federal financial accounting standards state that reliable information on the costs of federal programs or activities is crucial for effective management of government operations; federal financial accounting standards also state that Congress needs cost information to evaluate program performance, to make program authorization decisions, and to compare alternative courses of action. External providers employed different approaches for executive training, which had different cost implications. Based on external providers’ views, the cost of individual executive education training courses can vary greatly among external providers due to a variety of factors, including location of training, length of training, and whether courses are tailored to meet the mission and goals of a particular agency. For example, VA’s Leading EDGE (Executives Driving Government Excellence) program offers half-day executive training workshops to all agencies where employees can participate either in person or online. The workshops can serve from about 300 to over 700 participants. According to Leading EDGE’s executive director, the annual cost for Leading EDGE is about $850 per participant without coaching and $2,100 per participant with coaching. Other external providers we contacted host residential training courses or programs which are off-site from participant’s work locations and last over a period of several days or weeks, including the following: Leadership for a Democratic Society: FEI hosts this 22-day course over 28 days (includes weekends), which addresses (among other subjects) constitutional principles, personal leadership, organizational theory, and the policy framework in which governmental leadership occurs. In FY 2012, attending this course cost about $20,000. Senior Executive Fellows Program: the Harvard Kennedy School of Government hosts this 22-day program over 27 days (includes weekends) and addresses (among other subjects) political management, effective implementation, and performance management. In FY 2012, attending this course cost about $18,000. Leadership at the Peak: The Center for Creative Leadership offers this 5-day course which focuses on key leadership competencies such as communication, influence, validating and articulating a vision, and leading outwardly. The course incorporates a five-month learning experience including five days of classroom training, and other activities such as assessments and executive coaching sessions. In FY 2012, attending this course cost about $9,000. Executive Leadership for America: The Brookings Institution conducts this 6-day course which addresses (among other subjects) the historical framework for constitutional government and how to create an organizational environment that is responsive to change. In FY 2012, attending this course cost about $6,000. Agencies track some—but not all—costs of executive training administered by external providers. All 26 of the agency CHCOs that responded to our questionnaire provided data on executive training administered by external providers; however, half of the agencies reported that the data they provided were incomplete, and in some cases, had limitations. In addition, during our review, agency officials from 4 of the 26 agencies asked us to clarify the cost data we requested, noting that training cost data are not always readily available within their agencies. They explained that in order to respond to our data request, in some cases they would have to manually retrieve paper documents and tabulate the costs. Moreover, the agencies provided data that included different cost components. For example, one agency reported that it did not include costs for course materials. Two other agencies reported that they did not include costs for travel, lodging, or per diem. Other CHCO agencies cited additional problems with tracking and summarizing costs paid to external providers of executive education. For example, one agency reported experiencing challenges in tracking training costs agency-wide. According to agency officials, they were unable to completely (or 100 percent) accurately track training costs across the department because of the multiple, incompatible learning management systems that the department uses to track training throughout the agency. In addition, they stated that the agency’s practices for tracking training data are inconsistent within the agency because agency components do not always report training completed with external providers to the agency’s shared training database system. Another agency said its agency-wide training data were incomplete and unreliable because its internal training and financial tracking systems were incompatible with each other. In light of all these factors, agencies are likely underreporting the amount they spent on executive training. In our interviews with Energy, Treasury, and VA, the CHCOs (or their representatives) reported that their agencies track and report training cost data to OPM in various formats, some automated and some manual. However, the three agencies reported facing challenges tracking cost data. Energy reported that executive training reporting is not consistent across the agency because many Energy components have direct funding streams from Congress and schedule their own training programs; thus, they do not always report training completed with external providers to Energy’s Office of Human Capital. Moreover, because Energy’s Office of Human Capital has no direct access to component organization records, the CHCO cannot ensure that all of Energy’s funded and administered training programs are tracked and reported to EHRI and OPM; in addition, Energy’s CHCO cannot identify whether executive training is reported to OPM by a component organization in a separate report or with other line item reporting of completed training. However, the cost and delivery of Energy’s SES candidate development program and its executive training provided centrally by Energy’s Office of Human Capital is normally tracked and reported on an annual basis although Energy has not had any recent centrally funded executive learning activities. Treasury and VA also reported difficulties in collecting and tracking reliable executive training data. Treasury reported that some of its individual bureaus were challenged by our request to provide executive training cost data because the costs had to be identified by a manual review of financial transaction listings. They stated that part of the reason the costs were difficult to pull together is that the training costs were not reported via OPM’s Standard Form 182—which is used to collect and document training information for inclusion in participants’ employee records and the EHRI database. Treasury officials explained that much of its reported executive training was done by contract and was not procured by either the individual or the individual offices that would normally complete the training form. As a result, Treasury enlisted multiple sources to pull the data together at each of the agency’s bureaus. Treasury officials reported that the agency is working internally to determine how to track this information at the department level. VA reported two issues with its electronic reporting of data to EHRI: inconsistent recording of overall training cost data in its training management system, and incompatibility between VA’s learning management system and EHRI. We found discrepancies between the data for external executive training costs that agencies submitted to us and the data from OPM’s EHRI. In most instances where we identified discrepancies, the cost information that agencies provided to us was higher than the cost total from OPM’s EHRI. Table 3 provides illustrative examples of discrepancies in cost information. OPM officials agreed that agencies have challenges collecting and reporting costs for executive training through the EHRI database, and as a result, executive training cost data in EHRI is probably lower than actual agency expenditures.