This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-241 
entitled 'Department Of State: Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve 
Strategic Planning and Evaluation of Training for State Personnel' 
which was released on March 8, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Honorable Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senate: 

January 2011: 

Department Of State: 

Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve Strategic Planning and 
Evaluation of Training for State Personnel: 

GAO-11-241: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-241, a report to the Honorable Daniel K. Akaka, 
U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Because the U.S. Department of State (State) is the lead U.S. foreign 
affairs agency, its personnel require certain knowledge, skills, and 
abilities to address the global challenges and security threats facing 
the United States. State devoted about $255 million to personnel 
training in fiscal year 2010; the department’s Foreign Service 
Institute (FSI) is the primary training provider for State’s more than 
66,000 Foreign Service, civil service, and locally employed staff (LE 
staff) worldwide. GAO was asked to examine (1) State’s purpose and 
structure for training personnel and (2) the extent to which State’s 
training incorporates elements for effective training programs. GAO 
reviewed and analyzed data and documentation related to the agency’s 
training efforts; completed a training assessment using a tool 
developed based on prior GAO guidance; and interviewed officials in 
Washington, D.C., and at 12 overseas posts. 

What GAO Found: 

State’s purpose for training personnel is to develop the men and women 
the United States requires to fulfill its leadership role in world 
affairs and to advance and defend U.S. interests. State guidance 
outlines key training roles, including FSI’s primary role in 
developing training policies and facilitating necessary training, and 
the Bureau of Human Resources’ role in assigning employees to training 
and working with FSI to help ensure it meets their needs. Other 
bureaus, offices, and posts also share responsibilities for training. 
FSI currently offers more than 700 classroom courses, and has recently 
increased its focus on distance learning. Overall, about 40 percent of 
personnel training over the last 5 fiscal years, on average, was in 
foreign language skills. Other training for personnel generally 
focused on developing leadership, management, and other professional 
and technical skills and knowledge. 

State has taken many steps to incorporate the interrelated elements of 
an effective training program—planning, design, implementation, and 
evaluation—into its extensive training for personnel; however, the 
department’s strategic approach to workforce training has several key 
weaknesses. The department demonstrated a variety of ways in which it 
has endeavored to develop an effective training program, such as by 
compiling an annual training plan, and implementing a range of 
training evaluation mechanisms and a learning management system that 
can be used to track training delivery. However, GAO’s analysis found 
several gaps in the department’s efforts to strategically plan and 
prioritize training, ensure efficient and effective training design 
and delivery, and determine whether or how training and development 
efforts contribute to improved performance and desired results. For 
example: 

* State lacks a systematic, comprehensive training needs assessment 
process incorporating all bureaus and overseas posts. 

* State developed training continuums to provide information for 
employees about training opportunities, career paths, and how training 
can help employees attain career goals, but the continuums do not 
provide complete and accurate information, and other guidance does not 
cover all personnel. 

* State lacks formal guidance for curriculum design and for data 
collection and analysis, and thus cannot be assured that proper 
practices and procedures are systematically and comprehensively 
applied. 

* State could not sufficiently demonstrate consistent and appropriate 
support for training, because the department does not track detailed 
information on training cost and delivery that would allow for an 
analysis and comparison of employees in different groups, bureaus, 
regions, or posts. 

* State’s performance measures for training generally do not fully 
address training goals, and are generally output- rather than outcome-
oriented. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making several recommendations for State to improve strategic 
planning and evaluation of the department’s efforts to train 
personnel, including for improvements to State’s efforts to assess 
training needs and efforts to ensure training achieves desired 
results. State reviewed a draft of this report and generally agreed 
with our recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-241[ or key 
components. For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-
4268 or fordj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

State Has Developed an Extensive Training Program in Support of Its 
Mission, Primarily through the Foreign Service Institute: 

State Workforce Training Incorporates Many Aspects of Effective 
Training Programs, but Strategic Weaknesses Exist: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Attributes for Review of an Agency Training and 
Development Program: 

Appendix III: State Organization: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Selected Attributes and Supporting Indicators for Elements of 
Effective Federal Training Efforts: 

Table 2: Key Responsibilities for Training State Personnel According 
to State’s Foreign Affairs Manual: 

Table 3: Primary Functions of FSI Schools: 

Table 4: Key Strategic Weaknesses in State’s Efforts to Train 
Personnel: 

Table 5: Funding for State Personnel Training, Fiscal Years 2006-2011, 
Not Adjusted for Inflation: 

Table 6: Completion of Required Leadership Skills Training, as of May 
2010: 

Table 7: FSI and Bureau of Human Resources Training-related Goals and 
Measures, with GAO Assessments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Approximate Distribution of State’s Workforce by Employment 
Category, as of September 30, 2010: 

Figure 2: Distribution of Overseas v. Domestic Locations of State 
Foreign Service and Civil Service Employees: 

Figure 3: State’s Actual and Projected Foreign and Civil Service 
Personnel Levels, Fiscal Years 2006-2014: 

Figure 4: General Relationships between Elements of Federal Training 
and Development Efforts: 

Figure 5: FSI’s Organization: 

Figure 6: FSI Non-Language Classroom Course Offerings by Location, 
Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 7: Participation in Classroom, Distance Learning, and External 
Language and Non-language Training by All State Employees, Fiscal 
Years 2006-2010: 

Figure 8: Participation in Classroom, Distance Learning, and External 
Training by Employee Category, Fiscal Years 2006-2010: 

Abbreviations: 

CDO: Career Development Officer: 

FSI: Foreign Service Institute: 

IDP: individual development plan: 

LE staff: locally employed staff: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

State: Department of State: 

WDP: work development plan: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 25, 2011: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Akaka, 

As the lead department for U.S. foreign affairs, the Department of 
State (State) plays the primary role in developing and implementing 
U.S. foreign policy. In support of that role, State's personnel 
require certain knowledge, skills, and abilities to equip them to 
address the complex security threats and challenges of global 
interdependence that accompany 21st century diplomacy. Recent 
departmental initiatives--in particular, "Diplomacy 3.0," a multiyear 
effort launched in March 2009 with a primary aim of increasing the 
size of State's Foreign Service by 25 percent and the civil service by 
13 percent--have underscored the importance of training to equip 
personnel to fulfill State's leadership role in world affairs and to 
advance and defend U.S. interests abroad. Nongovernmental 
organizations such as the American Academy of Diplomacy have confirmed 
that challenges facing the United States--including the threat of Al-
Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, HIV/AIDS and other pandemics, 
environmental degradation, nuclear proliferation, and failed states--
require a significantly more robust foreign affairs capacity featuring 
skilled professionals. In fiscal years 2006 through 2010, State's 
funding for training personnel grew by about 62 percent, and the 
department requested more than $266 million in fiscal year 2011 for 
programs providing training in professional skills such as foreign 
language proficiency, area studies, information technology, consular 
duties, and others needed for the conduct of foreign relations. 
[Footnote 1] State's Foreign Service Institute (FSI) is the primary 
training provider for the department's more than 66,000 Foreign 
Service, civil service, and locally employed staff (LE staff) 
worldwide[Footnote 2] 

In response to your request for information about State's training of 
its personnel, we examined (1) State's purpose and structure for 
training personnel, and (2) the extent to which State's personnel 
training incorporates elements of effective federal training programs. 
[Footnote 3] 

Our analysis focuses primarily on the training that FSI provides, 
including leadership, management, professional, and area studies 
training, contributing to diplomatic readiness of State's Foreign 
Service and civil service personnel and LE staff overseas. In 
addition, in light of work that we recently published on shortfalls in 
State personnel's foreign language skills,[Footnote 4] this report 
does not focus on language training. This report does not include 
within its scope an assessment of "hard skills" (e.g., security and 
law enforcement) training provided by State's Bureau of Diplomatic 
Security. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed and analyzed data and 
documentation related to State's training efforts, such as strategic 
and workforce planning documents, information and data on recent FSI 
course offerings, data on personnel participation in training for 
fiscal years 2006 to 2010, and overall funding for training during 
that time period. We also reviewed legislative, regulatory, and State 
policy and procedural criteria relevant to training. In addition, we 
reviewed training evaluation mechanisms used by each of the four FSI 
schools--the Leadership and Management School, School of Applied 
Information Technology, School of Language Studies, and School of 
Professional and Area Studies--as well as within each of 10 divisions 
of the School of Professional and Area Studies[Footnote 5]. We 
analyzed responses to training-related questions included in the 
American Foreign Service Association's 2009 survey of State Foreign 
Service members, including more than 1,000 responses to an open-ended 
question regarding whether and how State training could be improved. 
[Footnote 6] While the results of this survey are not generalizeable, 
they provided valuable insights into potential areas for improvement. 
We interviewed key officials from nongovernmental organizations 
including the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the 
Stimson Center, as well as from 26 State bureaus and offices in 
Washington, D.C., including FSI, the Bureau of Human Resources, and 
the six geographic bureaus. We conducted semistructured telephone 
interviews with State officials with training-related responsibilities 
at 12 overseas missions. We selected a nongeneralizeable sample of 
countries designed to ensure geographic diversity; our criteria for 
selection also included factors such as the size of the post and 
hardship differential. We also interviewed officials from State's 
regional training centers located in Bangkok, Thailand; Ft. 
Lauderdale, Florida; and Frankfurt, Germany. With input from State, we 
completed a training assessment to determine the extent to which the 
department's personnel training incorporates elements of effective 
training programs--planning, design, implementation, and 
evaluation.[Footnote 7] We used the results of this assessment to 
identify any gaps in State's training based on criteria identified in 
GAO, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), State, and other 
legislative and regulatory guidance and policy. Appendix I contains 
additional details about our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 to January 2011 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. 

Background: 

State defines its mission as advancing freedom by helping build and 
sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of 
well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce 
widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international 
system. To achieve this mission, State relies on more than 66,000 
Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff at its headquarters in 
Washington, D.C., and serving at 271 missions[Footnote 8] in 189 
countries worldwide. State's training and development program supports 
its strategic goal of strengthening consular and management 
capabilities and attempts to develop and maintain a workforce 
qualified to achieve its mission. 

Distribution and Numbers of State Employees: 

Nearly a third of State's workforce are Foreign Service and civil 
service direct hires, and over half of State's workforce are LE staff. 
The remaining workforce consists of domestic contractors and temporary 
personnel. See figure 1. 

Figure 1: Approximate Distribution of State's Workforce by Employment 
Category, as of September 30, 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Locally employed staff: 56%; 
Foreign Service: 17%; 
Civil service: 13%; 
Domestic contractors: 9%; 
Government temporary: 5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Note: Figures for domestic contractors and government temporary 
workers are estimates. 

[End of figure] 

According to State's Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession 
Plan, about two-thirds of State's Foreign Service employees are 
assigned to overseas posts and the remaining one-third are employed 
domestically. Almost all of State's civil service employees are 
assigned at domestic locations.[Footnote 9] See figure 2. 

Figure 2: Distribution of Overseas v. Domestic Locations of State 
Foreign Service and Civil Service Employees: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Foreign service: 
Domestic: 36%; 
Overseas: 64%. 

Civil service:	
Domestic: 100%. 

Total:	
Domestic: 63%; 
Overseas: 37%. 

Source: State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan for 
Fiscal Years 2010-2014. 

[End of figure] 

During fiscal years 2006 through 2010, State has increased its Foreign 
Service and civil service workforce by about 17 percent, setting 
priority on filling personnel shortages created in part by demands in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. In March 2009, State announced plans to increase 
its Foreign Service workforce by 25 percent and the civil service 
workforce by 13 percent by fiscal year 2014 as part of the Diplomacy 
3.0 initiative. By September 30, 2010, State had hired more than 1,900 
Foreign Service and civil service employees in new positions[Footnote 
10] and planned to fill approximately 2,000 additional new positions 
through 2014 to address projected needs. 

Figure 3 shows State's actual and projected numbers of Foreign Service 
and civil service personnel in fiscal years 2006 through 2014. 

Figure 3: State's Actual and Projected Foreign and Civil Service 
Personnel Levels, Fiscal Years 2006-2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Foreign service base level: 11,397; 
Civil service base level: 8,270; 
Foreign service new hires: 0; 
Civil service new hires: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Foreign service base level: 11,467; 
Civil service base level: 8,784; 
Foreign service new hires: 0; 
Civil service new hires: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Foreign service base level: 11,656; 
Civil service base level: 9,328; 
Foreign service new hires: 0; 
Civil service new hires: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Foreign service base level: 12,257; 
Civil service base level: 9,614; 
Foreign service new hires: 0; 
Civil service new hires: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Foreign service base level: 13,008; 
Civil service base level: 10,039; 
Foreign service new hires: 0; 
Civil service new hires: 0. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Foreign service base level: 13,008; 
Civil service base level: 10,039; 
Foreign service new hires: 430; 
Civil service new hires: 189 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Foreign service base level: 13,438; 
Civil service base level: 10,228; 
Foreign service new hires: 410; 
Civil service new hires: 189. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Foreign service base level: 13,848; 
Civil service base level: 10,417; 
Foreign service new hires: 402; 
Civil service new hires: 189. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Foreign service base level: 14,250; 
Civil service base level: 10,606; 
Foreign service new hires: 82; 
Civil service new hires: 40. 

Source: GAO analysis of State personnel data, including State’s 
projections for fiscal years 2011-2014. 

Notes: 

State's projections for hiring do not include estimates for LE staff. 

State's projections for new hires are as follows: FY2011: 430 Foreign 
Service (FS) and 189 civil service (CS); FY2012: 410 FS and 189 CS; 
FY2013: 402 FS and 189 CS; FY2014: 82 FS and 40 CS. 

[End of figure] 

State's Organization: 

Each of State's six geographic bureaus--the Bureaus of African 
Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian 
Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and 
Western Hemisphere Affairs--coordinates the conduct of U.S. foreign 
relations concerning a specific region of the world. Functional 
bureaus, such as the Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs 
and Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, generally manage and 
coordinate specific issues and activities within the department. In 
addition, various offices report to the Secretary's office, including 
the Office of the Inspector General and Office of Intelligence and 
Research. See appendix III for State's organizational chart. 

State's Workforce Training Policy: 

State outlines its policies for employee training and career 
development in two publications. The Foreign Affairs Manual describes 
the functional statements and organization responsibilities and 
authorities assigned to each of State's major components. The Foreign 
Affairs Handbooks provide detailed procedural implementation of 
policies and guidance outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual. In 
certain cases, the policies outlined in the manual and handbooks 
reflect legislative criteria for training Foreign Service, civil 
service, and LE staff. 

* Foreign Service and LE staff. The objective of the Foreign Service 
Act,[Footnote 11] as amended, is to strengthen and improve the Foreign 
Service of the United States. The Act requires the Secretary of State 
to maintain and operate an institute for training to promote career 
development within the Foreign Service. This institute is to provide 
necessary training and instruction in the field of foreign relations 
to the members of the Foreign Service, including foreign national 
employees--that is, LE staff who are not U.S. citizens--who provide 
clerical, administrative, technical, fiscal, and other support at 
foreign service posts abroad, and to employees of the department and 
other U.S. departments and agencies. The Foreign Service Act also 
requires the Secretary of State to establish a professional 
development program to assure that members of the Foreign Service 
obtain skills and knowledge required at various stages of their 
careers, with primary attention to training for career candidate 
officers and mid-career officers. In addition to department policies, 
local labor laws, which vary from country to country, also apply to 
all LE staff. 

* Civil service. State's civil service workforce is regulated by OPM 
guidelines and federal laws. In particular, according to OPM, the 
Government Employees Training Act, as amended,[Footnote 12] created a 
framework for agencies to plan, establish, implement, evaluate, and 
fund training and development programs designed to improve the quality 
and performance of the workforce. In addition, Executive Orders have 
provided the Secretary of State with additional presidential direction 
on implementation of the government Employees Training Act by 
directing that agencies (1) develop training programs to address both 
short- and long-range program needs specific to occupations or 
organizational groups and (2) conduct periodic training needs 
assessments.[Footnote 13] 

Principles of Effective Federal Training Programs: 

GAO's previously issued guide for assessing federal strategic training 
and development efforts identifies 32 attributes, as well as 
corresponding indicators for each attribute, relating to four broad, 
interrelated elements of an effective training program: (1) planning, 
(2) design, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation.[Footnote 14] 
Figure 4 depicts general relationships between these four elements 
that help to produce a strategic approach to federal training and 
development efforts. 

Figure 4: General Relationships between Elements of Federal Training 
and Development Efforts: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Planning/Front-end Analysis: 
* Develop a strategic approach that establishes priorities and 
leverages investments in training and development to achieve agency 
results. 

Design/Development: 
* Identify specific training and development initiatives that, in 
conjunction with other strategies, improve individual and agency 
performance. 

Implementation: 
* Ensure effective and efficient delivery of training and development 
opportunities in an environment that supports learning and change. 

Evaluation: 
Demonstrate how training and development efforts contribute to 
improved performance and results. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The guide serves as a flexible framework for assessing how agencies 
plan, design, implement, and evaluate training and development 
programs that contribute to improved organizational performance and 
enhanced employee skills and competencies. For each of the four 
elements of the training and development process, the guide provides a 
set of attributes or key questions to consider when assessing a 
training program, as well as a list of indicators to look for related 
to each key question (see appendix II for a detailed listing of the 
elements and their associated attributes). Because the guide is meant 
to serve as a flexible framework, an agency's training and development 
program is not necessarily expected to address every indicator. 
However, the guide can be used to identify potential gaps or strategic 
weaknesses in an agency's training program. 

Table 1 lists examples of attributes, as well as supporting 
indicators, for assessing each of the four elements outlined in the 
guide. 

Table 1: Selected Attributes and Supporting Indicators for Elements of 
Effective Federal Training Efforts: 

Training element: Planning; 
Attribute: How does the agency identify the appropriate level of 
investment to provide for training and development efforts and 
prioritize funding so that the most important training needs are 
addressed first? 
Selected indicators: Goals and expectations for training and 
development investments that are transparent and clearly defined and 
whose rationale is consistent across the range of human capital 
programs at the agency. A training plan or other document that 
presents a business case for proposed training and development 
investments, including the identified problem or opportunity, the 
concept for an improved situation or condition, linkages with the 
agency's strategic objectives, anticipated benefits and projected 
costs, and ways to mitigate associated risks. 

Training element: Design; 
Attribute: How does the agency compare the merits of different 
delivery mechanisms (such as classroom or computer-based training) and 
determine what mix of mechanisms to use to ensure efficient and cost-
effective delivery? 
Selected indicators: Analysis of cost data on different delivery 
mechanisms. Strategies to continually update training and development 
opportunities, such as making use of advances in technologies. 

Training element: Implementation; 
Attribute: Does the agency take actions to foster an environment 
conducive to effective training and development (such as employing 
qualified instructors; providing training space, facilities, and 
equipment; and establishing appropriate systems and databases to 
enable proper management and support of training)? 
Selected indicators: Evidence that the agency has properly trained 
managers to coach, evaluate, and conduct employee career discussions. 
Space, facilities, and equipment that meet the developmental needs of 
participants without creating unplanned excess capacity. 

Training element: Evaluation; 
Attribute: How does the agency incorporate evaluation feedback into 
the planning, design, and implementation of its training and 
development efforts? 
Selected indicators: Systematic monitoring and feedback processes; 
Informal feedback mechanisms. 

Source: GAO-04-546G. 

[End of table] 

State Has Developed an Extensive Training Program in Support of Its 
Mission, Primarily through the Foreign Service Institute: 

Purpose and Key Responsibilities for Training: 

State has articulated its training and professional development 
mission in various agency plans and guidance and implements this 
mission mainly through FSI. According to the organizational directive 
outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual, State "is fully committed to 
the career development of all its employees, consistent with 
organizational needs, in order to improve service, increase efficiency 
and economy, and build and maintain a force of skilled and efficient 
employees." The department's Annual Training Plan states that "the 
purpose of the department's training program is to develop the men and 
women our nation requires to fulfill our leadership role in world 
affairs and to advance and defend U.S. interests." 

Located at the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training 
Center in Arlington, Virginia, FSI was established in 1947 to promote 
career development within the Foreign Service and to provide necessary 
training and instruction in the field of foreign relations to members 
of the Foreign Service and to employees of the department and of other 
agencies. It is State's primary training provider for personnel, 
offering entry-, mid-, and senior-level training for employees as they 
progress through their careers, maintaining personnel training 
records, and overseeing personnel requests for external training. 
[Footnote 15] 

The Foreign Affairs Manual identifies training oversight authorities 
for State officials and implementation responsibilities for FSI, the 
Bureau of Human Resources, principal officers at post, bureau 
officials, managers, supervisors, and employees. Table 2 highlights 
key authorities and responsibilities. 

Table 2: Key Responsibilities for Training State Personnel According 
to State's Foreign Affairs Manual: 

Responsible party: Secretary of State; 
Key responsibilities: Authorized to establish and implement needed 
training programs and provide required resources necessary to 
establish and maintain such programs. 

Responsible party: Director of FSI; 
Key responsibilities: State's chief training official. Responsible for 
establishing, administering, evaluating, and maintaining training 
which meets the needs of State. 

Responsible party: Director General of the Foreign Service and 
Director of Human Resources; 
Key responsibilities: Assign Foreign Service and civil service 
employees to training, and work with the Director of FSI to help 
ensure that training programs meet Foreign Service and civil service 
needs. 

Responsible party: Bureau Training Officials; 
Key responsibilities: Identify bureau training needs. Develop a bureau 
career guide that outlines the profiles of major occupations, 
including knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for each 
occupation and grade. 

Responsible party: Principal Officer at overseas post; 
Key responsibilities: Supervise and coordinate all post-based training 
activities. Provide formal and informal training for LE staff as 
needed. 

Source: State Foreign Affairs Manual. 

[End of table] 

The Foreign Affairs Manual also states that managers, supervisors, and 
employees all have responsibilities in regard to training. Managers 
and supervisors are responsible for determining specific employee 
training needs and ensuring that employees receive training for 
effective job performance. Employees are responsible for considering 
training that will enable them to improve their performance and 
prepare them for greater responsibilities at the department. 

FSI Offers Wide Range of Training Opportunities to State Personnel: 

FSI is organized into four schools, each with multiple divisions: the 
School of Language Studies, with seven divisions; the School of 
Applied Information Technology, with three divisions; the Leadership 
and Management School, with four divisions; and the School of 
Professional and Area Studies, with 10 divisions. Each school is 
headed by a dean. FSI's Executive Director's office provides general 
oversight and management for FSI's operations, and the Transition 
Center provides training and other resources for personnel on topics 
such as career transitions and preparing for life overseas. See figure 
5. 

Figure 5: FSI's Organization: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart] 

Top level: 
* Office of the Director. 

Second level, reporting to Office of the Director: 
* Deputy Director. 

Third level, reporting to Deputy Director: 
* School of Language Studies FSI/SLS; 
* School of Applied Information Technology FSI/SAIT; 
* Leadership and Management School FSI/LMS; 
* School of Professional and Area Studies FSI/SPAS; 
* Transition Center FSI/TC; 
* Executive Director FSI/EX. 

Fourth level, reporting to School of Language Studies FSI/SLS: 
* Continuing Training and Testing FSI/SLS/CTT; 
* East Asian and Pacific Languages FSI/SLS/EAP; 
* European and African Languages FSI/SLS/EUA; 
* Near East, Central and South Asian Languages FSI/SLS/NEA; 
* Research, Evaluation and Development FSI/SLS/RE&D; 
* Romance Languages FSI/SLS/ROM; 
* Slavic, Pashto and Persian Languages FSI/SLS/SPP. 

Fourth level, reporting to School of Applied Information Technology 
FSI/SAIT: 
* Business Applications FSI/SAIT/BA; 
* Enterprise Technology FSI/SAIT/ET; 
* Research, Learning and Development FSI/SAIT/RLD. 

Fourth level, reporting to Leadership and Management School FSI/LMS: 
* Crisis Management Training FSI/LMS/CMT; 
* Executive Development Division FSI/LMS/EDD; 
* Leadership Training Division FSI/LMS/LTD; 
* Policy Leadership Division FSI/LMS/PLD. 

Fourth level, reporting to School of Professional and Area Studies 
FSI/SPAS: 
* Area Studies FSI/SPAS/AS; 
* Consular Training FSI/SPAS/CON; 
* Curriculum and Staff Development FSI/SPAS/CSD; 
* Economic and Commercial Studies FSI/SPAS/ECON; 
* Management Tradecraft Training FSI/SPAS/MTT; 
* Office Management Training FSI/SPAS/OMT; 
* Orientation FSI/SPAS/OR; 
* Political Training FSI/SPAS/POL; 
* Public Diplomacy FSI/SPAS/PD; 
* Stability Operations FSI/SPAS/SO. 

Fourth level, reporting to Transition Center FSI/TC: 
* Career Transition Center FSI/TC/CTC; 
* Overseas Briefing Center FSI/TC/OBC; 
* Transition Center Training FSI/TC/T. 

Fourth level, reporting to Executive Director FSI/EX: 
* Acquisitions FSI/EX/ACQ; 
* Budget FSI/EX/BUD; 
* General Services FSI/EX/GSO; 
* Human Resources FSI/EX/HR; 
* Registrar FSI/EX/REG; 
* Management Analysts FSI/EX; 
* Information Resource Management FSI/EX; 
* Audio Visual FSI/EX/AVF: 
- Instructional Support Division FSI/EX/ISD; 
- Office of Information Management FSI/EX/OMIS Info Systems; 
- Corporate Systems. 

Source: State. 

[End of figure] 

Each school specializes in providing training in specific areas of 
study. See table 3. 

Table 3: Primary Functions of FSI Schools: 

School: School of Language Studies; 
Primary training functions: Offers training to Foreign Service 
Officers, Foreign Service Specialists, and eligible family members in 
over 60 languages from beginner to advanced levels at FSI's Arlington 
campus, overseas locations, and through Distance Learning. Offers full-
time advanced level training programs for "superhard" languages[A] at 
field schools in Seoul, Taipei, Tunis,[B] and Yokohama. 

School: School of Applied Information Technology; 
Primary training functions: Provides training to improve business 
applications skills of all employees. Provides training in the 
technologies employed across State for information technology (IT) 
professionals. Offers Information Resources Management Tradecraft 
courses that provide IT managers with broad IT management skills. 

School: Leadership and Management School; 
Primary training functions: Offers courses in crisis management 
training, management and executive development, senior policy 
seminars, and ambassadorial seminars. 

School: School of Professional and Area Studies; 
Primary training functions: Provides a variety of training programs 
intended to instill and improve professional and tradecraft skills and 
knowledge. Serves as locus for LE staff training. 

Source: GAO analysis of State documentary evidence. 

[A] State categorizes Korean, Chinese, Arabic, and Japanese--languages 
that are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers to learn--
as superhard languages. 

[B] FSI and the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau are working on 
decentralizing the advanced Arabic program in the region, and toward 
closing the FSI Tunis Field School in fiscal year 2012. 

[End of table] 

FSI offers over 700 different classroom courses at its Arlington 
campus, regional centers, and overseas posts. FSI publishes a course 
catalog listing the times and dates of upcoming courses, and officials 
told us that FSI advertises new courses at quarterly meetings with 
bureau training officers and through department cables. The duration 
of classroom courses can range from a half day to 2 years for language 
training. In fiscal year 2010, FSI had over 2,100 offerings of non- 
language classroom courses, which include courses that focus on job- 
related professional and technical skills, as well as leadership and 
management skills, at its domestic and overseas locations. In addition 
to providing training at the main campus, FSI offers courses at other 
locations in the United States, regional centers, and overseas 
locations. About 86 percent of these courses were offered at domestic 
locations and 14 percent at overseas locations.[Footnote 16] 
Approximately 70 percent of all FSI non-language courses in 2010 were 
offered at the FSI campus in Arlington, and roughly half of the 
remaining courses at domestic locations were offered at State 
headquarters in Washington, D.C. See figure 6. 

Figure 6: FSI Non-Language Classroom Course Offerings by Location, 
Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

FSI: 69%; 
All other overseas posts: 10%; 
All other domestic sites: 9%; 
Washington, DC: 8%; 
Regional centers: 4%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Notes: 

The duration of each course varies; however, according to State 
officials, State does not track training hours by location. 

The data depicted omit 1,200 domestic and overseas offerings of a 1- 
hour course in fiscal year 2010 to train end users in State's new 
departmentwide messaging system, SMART (State Messaging and Archive 
Retrieval Tool). With the inclusion of SMART courses, State data for 
fiscal year 2010 show that about 64 percent of FSI non-language 
classroom courses were offered at domestic locations and 36 percent at 
overseas locations. 

Courses offered at the regional center in Ft. Lauderdale were counted 
as overseas locations because the regional center provides services to 
posts in the Western Hemisphere Affairs region. 

[End of figure] 

FSI has also increased its focus on distance learning in recent years. 
According to State officials, in addition to offering classroom 
training, FSI began offering distance learning courses in 2002. In 
fiscal year 2010, FSI offered 190 customized courses, including 
courses with little or no interaction with an instructor that allow 
participants to complete the course at their own pace; real-time 
courses in which students and instructors participate simultaneously 
via various technologies; and "blended courses," which combine various 
delivery methods such as time spent in the classroom and online. In 
addition, FSI offers about 3,000 commercially developed courses that 
are available at all times in a wide variety of topics, including 
Microsoft applications and various business topics. According to FSI 
officials, distance learning allows FSI to provide training for LE 
staff overseas who otherwise would have been unable to access training. 

State Provides Additional Training and Career Development 
Opportunities: 

While FSI is State's primary training provider, other bureaus in the 
department also offer training for State and other federal government 
employees. For example, the Office of Training and Performance Support 
within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security offers security and law 
enforcement training to personnel, including Special Agents, Regional 
Security Officers, and others. The Diplomatic Security Training Center 
provides about 85 instructor-led courses, including the Foreign 
Affairs Counter Threat course for personnel who are deploying to 
critical threat environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. 
Other departmentwide bureau-sponsored training includes ethics 
training by the Office of the Legal Advisor; Equal Employment 
Opportunity laws and regulations training by the Office of Civil 
Rights; and emergency preparedness, property record keeping, 
procurement, logistics management, federal assistance, and safety 
awareness training by the Bureau of Administration. 

State also offers several career development programs for employees. 
For example, in 2005 State introduced the Career Development Program 
for Foreign Service employees, which sets requirements for advancement 
into the senior ranks and focuses on developing appropriate 
professional, leadership, language, and technical skills at each 
level. State's Civil Service Mid-Level Rotational Program provides 
opportunities for mid-level civil service employees to rotate to other 
bureaus to broaden their skills, increase their knowledge, and enhance 
their personnel and professional growth. In addition, State has 
mentoring programs for entry-level, as well as more experienced, 
employees. 

According to State officials, bureaus, offices, and posts may also 
develop and offer their own training and professional development 
opportunities when the bureau, office, or post has specific needs that 
make it more efficient for it to develop the training itself or seek 
training outside the agency. Officials from several bureaus, offices, 
and posts told us they have designed various training programs that 
are tailored to the specific needs of their employees, which may 
include orientation, on-the-job training, mentorship opportunities, 
and annual conferences, workshops, or seminars. For example: 

* The Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs organizes a 
half-day orientation session every 6 months for employees who are new 
to the bureau. 

* The Bureaus of European and Eurasian Affairs; International 
Organizations; Consular Affairs; and Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 
host annual conferences and workshops for various employees in their 
bureaus. 

* The Bureau of Intelligence and Research coordinates with training 
programs at other federal agencies in the intelligence community to 
arrange for its employees to attend specialized training in subject 
matter that is not available through FSI. 

* The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement provides 
training sessions that help employees gain familiarization with 
various areas of law enforcement. 

* Training officials at 11 of the 12 overseas posts we interviewed 
said their post sponsors a language program, which may include classes 
in the native language for Americans and English language courses for 
LE staff. 

* Officials at 8 of the 12 overseas posts we interviewed said they 
host some type of orientation for employees new to the post. 

In addition, officials told us that three of State's regional bureaus--
Western Hemisphere Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, and East 
Asian and Pacific Affairs--operate regional centers that service 
various needs of the posts in their respective regions in Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida; Frankfurt, Germany; and Bangkok, Thailand. 
[Footnote 17] Officials at all of the regional centers told us they 
have a model for providing some training for employees in their 
respective region, including LE staff. These officials also noted that 
some of these courses were developed by FSI, while other courses have 
been designed and developed by the regional center. 

State employees may also participate in various external training 
opportunities. For example, officials noted that certain civil service 
employees in particular may take advantage of human resource or 
technical courses offered through outside vendors such as the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture Graduate School, that are not available 
through FSI.[Footnote 18] In addition, employees may participate in 
several long-term external career development opportunities, which are 
generally available to tenured Foreign Service and civil service 
employees who are at the mid-and senior-grade levels. These programs 
normally last from 9 to 12 months and include the military schools 
(War Colleges and Commands) and nondegree fellowships, as well as 
bachelors and masters degree programs at various colleges and 
universities. For example, State data showed that a total of about 130 
Foreign Service and civil service employees participated in long-term 
academic training in the 2009-2010 academic year. Further, in 2009, 
almost 80 State employees participated in long-term development 
programs related to interdepartmental collaboration on national 
security and were assigned to long-term rotational positions at 
agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence. 

Types and Amount of Training Vary for Foreign Service, Civil Service, 
and LE Staff: 

State personnel receive varying types and amounts of training, 
depending on their position or category, career stage, specific 
training needs, and available resources. State data on employee 
training hours in fiscal years 2006 through 2010 show the following: 

* Almost 90 percent of all training hours took place in the classroom, 
with about half of these hours for language training and the other 
half for non-language training. 

* Time spent in distance learning comprised about 7 percent of all 
training hours. 

* Training by external providers comprised 5 percent of training hours. 

* About 85 percent of employee hours in classroom training was for 
Foreign Service employees, with about half of this time for language 
training; about 15 percent of FSI classroom training was for civil 
service and LE staff. 

* Civil service employees spent about 70 percent of total hours in 
external training. 

* LE staff spent the largest amount of time in distance learning--
about 47 percent of total hours in this type of training. 

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the types and amounts of training that 
State employees received in fiscal years 2006 through 2010. 

Figure 7: Participation in Classroom, Distance Learning, and External 
Language and Non-language Training by All State Employees, Fiscal 
Years 2006-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Classroom non-language: 48%; 
Classroom language: 40%; 
Distance learning non-language: 6%; 
Distance learning language: 1%; 
External training: 5%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Note: Data depicted for fiscal year 2010 training participation 
through March 31, 2010. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8: Participation in Classroom, Distance Learning, and External 
Training by Employee Category, Fiscal Years 2006-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 pie-charts] 

Classroom training participation: 
Foreign service: 85%; 
Civil service: 9%; 
Locally employed staff: 6%. 

Distance learning training participation: 
Foreign service: 36%; 
Civil service: 17%; 
Locally employed staff: 47%. 

External training participation: 
Foreign service: 29%; 
Civil service: 70%; 
Locally employed staff: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Note: Data depicted for fiscal year 2010 training participation 
through March 31, 2010. 

[End of figure] 

State Workforce Training Incorporates Many Aspects of Effective 
Training Programs, but Strategic Weaknesses Exist: 

State has taken many steps to incorporate the interrelated elements of 
an effective training program--planning, design, implementation, and 
evaluation--into its training for personnel,[Footnote 19] but the 
department's strategic approach to workforce training has several key 
weaknesses. State demonstrated a variety of examples of ways in which 
the department has endeavored to develop an effective training 
program, such as by compiling an annual training plan and implementing 
a range of training evaluation mechanisms. However, in our analysis of 
the extent to which State's training program reflects key attributes 
identified in prior GAO guidance, we found several key gaps in the 
department's efforts to strategically plan and prioritize training, 
ensure efficient and effective training design and delivery, and 
determine whether or how training and development efforts contribute 
to improved performance and desired results. These issue areas are 
generally connected with various attributes and indicators associated 
with more than one element of the training and development process, as 
planning, design, implementation, and evaluation efforts are often 
interrelated.[Footnote 20] 

State's Training Reflects Aspects of Effective Training Programs: 

State's personnel training reflects numerous aspects of effective 
training programs, based on our assessment using the criteria GAO 
previously identified. (See appendix II for a detailed listing of the 
elements with their associated attributes.) For example, we identified 
the following positive practices relevant to the major, interrelated 
elements of the training and development process. 

* Planning. State maintains a workforce training plan, as required by 
federal regulations.[Footnote 21] FSI leads efforts to prepare the 
training plan annually with input from other bureaus and offices; the 
plan is linked to State's overall strategic plan, and presents a 
business case for proposed training investments, including training 
provided by FSI, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and other 
personnel training programs, such as external and long-term training 
opportunities.[Footnote 22] FSI's director--the chief training officer 
for the department--and the Director General of the Foreign Service 
and Director of Human Resources are members of the department's senior 
management, reporting to State's Under Secretary for Management. 
According to State, in demonstration of its commitment to training, 
the department dedicates almost 1.5 percent--approximately $214 
million in fiscal year 2010--of its program budget to personnel 
training.[Footnote 23] State's Foreign Affairs Manual and Foreign 
Affairs Handbooks include information on the department's legislative 
authorities and policies that may relate to, or require training and 
development for, Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff. In 
addition, FSI publishes an annual schedule of courses, which provides 
information for employees on the more than 700 classroom courses FSI 
offers, as well as approximately 190 custom-developed distance 
learning courses. 

* Design. FSI highlighted its involvement of curricula and education 
experts as well as subject matter or technical experts in the 
development of courses as a positive practice. FSI officials stated 
all courses are designed to meet specific learning objectives. The 
schedule of courses generally includes information for each course 
such as a brief description, any prerequisites, course objectives, and 
relevant competencies and precepts.[Footnote 24] State has also 
designed programs that incorporate various cross-training 
opportunities and targeted experiences. For example, Foreign Service 
and civil service personnel may participate in rotational assignments, 
congressional fellowships, OPM leadership seminars, or programs 
through the National Defense University, among other opportunities; 
and LE staff may participate in short-term details to other posts, or 
opportunities to "shadow" a more experienced employee, according to 
State officials. Additionally, State has made an effort to design and 
develop courses that use advances in technologies to enhance its 
training efforts, another example of a positive practice. The number 
of distance learning offerings, as well as employee participation in 
distance learning, has increased in recent years. For example, State's 
latest annual training plan reported that FSI developed 20 new custom 
distance learning courses during the prior year[Footnote 25]. FSI has 
also piloted "blended" learning opportunities at some overseas posts, 
which may include group instruction via videoconference along with 
online course content. 

* Implementation. State has taken steps to provide employees with a 
work environment that promotes learning, such as by publishing links 
to the schedule of courses and information on upcoming learning 
opportunities, and providing access to distance learning courses from 
FSI's intranet home page. To enhance accessibility, the schedule of 
courses is also available in hard copy or CD-ROM. Moreover, State has 
implemented oversight mechanisms to ensure that employees take 
advantage of legitimate training opportunities and that the agency 
does not pay for fraudulent training. State has also put in place 
training or continued service agreements for certain training to help 
ensure accountability as well as to encourage employees to accept the 
goals of training efforts and apply knowledge gained through training 
on the job. For example, FSI has an attendance policy requiring 
students to participate in 80 to 100 percent of a classroom course--
depending upon duration and subject matter--and pass any applicable 
testing requirement in order to receive official course credit. The 
employee's home bureau must generally reimburse FSI in the event that 
an employee does not show up or complete a course. In addition, FSI 
generally reviews and approves all applications for external training. 
Employees generally must sign an agreement to reimburse State if they 
do not complete an external training course they registered for, and 
employees must complete a post-training evaluation for any external 
training. Several posts we interviewed noted they have training 
agreements in place for training provided to LE staff, which may 
require personnel to submit a report to supervisors on the outcome of 
training or reimburse State for costs such as travel in the event they 
do not successfully complete a training course.[Footnote 26] 

* Evaluation. State has a range of training evaluation mechanisms in 
place, including mid-and post-training course evaluations, some 
incorporating supervisors as well as employees. Efforts to evaluate 
training in order to assess the extent to which it contributes to 
improved results is considered an essential component of an effective 
training program. The department also has a learning management system 
that can track delivery of training. For example, as noted previously, 
State provided data to us on training hours and courses completed by 
Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff over the past 5 fiscal 
years, including data on language and non-language classroom and 
distance learning, as well as external training. Additionally, since 
2006 FSI has conducted an annual training survey; for example, FSI 
reported most respondents to the 2010 survey were, in general, 
satisfied or very satisfied with training[Footnote 27]. Further, to 
comply with an OPM mandate, according to State, in 2007 the department 
conducted the biennial Quality of Work Life Survey, which addresses 
human capital issues and trends.[Footnote 28] State reported that the 
2007 survey found a majority of respondents agreed with the statement, 
"I receive adequate training to do my job." 

Weaknesses Exist in State's Strategic Approach to Personnel Training: 

Although State's training practices and procedures reflect numerous 
attributes and indicators of an effective training program, we found 
gaps in six key areas (see table 4). Each of these issue areas broadly 
relates to multiple elements, attributes, and indicators throughout 
the interrelated training and development process. While an agency's 
training program is not necessarily expected to address every 
indicator identified in the GAO guidance, based on our assessment, we 
identified strategic weaknesses related to these six issue areas as 
particularly important to ensuring effective planning, design, 
implementation, and evaluation of personnel training. 

Table 4: Key Strategic Weaknesses in State's Efforts to Train 
Personnel: 

* State lacks a systematic, comprehensive training needs assessment 
process incorporating all bureaus and overseas posts. 

* State developed training continuums to provide information for 
employees about training opportunities, career ladders and paths, and 
how training can help employees attain career goals, but the 
continuums do not provide complete and accurate information for 
employees. 

* State has not developed adequate curriculum design guidance or a 
data collection and analysis plan, which could help ensure that 
appropriate procedures and criteria for designing and evaluating 
training are systematically applied across the board. 

* State could not sufficiently demonstrate consistent and appropriate 
support for training, because it does not track detailed data and 
information on training cost and delivery that would allow for an 
analysis and comparison of employees in different employee groups, 
bureaus, regions, and posts. 

* State has developed several training-related goals and measures, but 
the measures do not fully address the goals, and are generally output 
rather than outcome oriented. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

State Lacks Systematic, Comprehensive Training Needs Assessment: 

Although State has several practices in place to identify training 
needs, the department lacks a systematic, comprehensive training needs 
assessment process clearly incorporating all bureaus and posts, 
particularly at the occupational and individual levels. Our previous 
work identifying elements of effective training states that an agency 
can use organizational, occupational, and individual training needs 
assessments to help ensure training is connected to improving 
individual and agency performance in achieving results.[Footnote 29] 
OPM guidance refers to this as a multilevel training needs assessment 
process and states that to be successful, an assessment process should 
be ongoing, involve management at all levels, and be integrated into 
the agency's program planning and budgeting process.[Footnote 30] 
Further, under Executive Order, agencies are to review, not less than 
annually, programs to identify training needs, establish priorities 
for training, and provide resources in accordance with those 
priorities.[Footnote 31] In addition, State's Foreign Affairs Manual 
states that bureau executive directors are responsible for identifying 
bureau training needs. State guidance also notes that not conducting 
training needs assessments may cause time and resources to be wasted 
in developing and teaching skills that employees do not need, while 
true training needs and barriers may go unaddressed. 

We found that State has some processes in place to identify broad or 
cross-cutting training needs at the organizational level. For example, 
FSI officials told us the institute identifies training needs and 
strategy in part through FSI officials' participation in various 
departmental committees or working groups that may address training 
issues or discuss training needs. They noted that FSI's Director, who 
acts as the Chief Training Officer for the department, attends the 
Secretary's weekly staff meetings and holds monthly meetings with the 
Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human 
Resources. The Deputy Director participates in periodic meetings with 
the Bureau of Human Resources Office of Career Development and 
Assignments. FSI officials added they were holding weekly meetings 
with officials from the bureau on how to address training needs 
related to the recent increase in hiring. Further, they said the Dean 
of the School of Applied Information Technology participates in 
periodic meetings with State's Chief Information Officer to stay 
abreast of information technology training needs. According to State's 
Bureau of Human Resources, State aims to identify training needs 
related in particular to the department's foreign policy mission and 
emerging issues. 

However, State's processes for identifying both organizational, cross- 
cutting, and more specific occupational training needs do not clearly 
incorporate all bureaus and posts. For example, officials from a 
number of bureaus told us that their bureaus had not conducted formal 
training needs assessments. Only one bureau indicated it had recently 
conducted an assessment relevant to training needs. To help identify 
cross-cutting as well as more specific occupational training needs, 
FSI officials said the institute holds quarterly meetings with bureau 
training officers, providing opportunities to discuss any bureau 
training needs and to share information, for example, about upcoming 
course offerings. However, several bureau training officials we met 
with noted that a bureau with a specific training need would generally 
reach out to FSI on a case-by-case or ad hoc basis. They said that FSI 
is generally responsive to ad hoc requests regarding specific training 
needs, but discussions at the quarterly meetings typically address 
topics such as training-related administrative processes, rather than 
addressing bureau training needs. 

State's Office of Inspector General (OIG) previously recommended that 
State conduct annual training needs assessments and implement a more 
comprehensive and systematic planning process for training 
incorporating all bureaus and posts,[Footnote 32] such as by requiring 
a training section in the department's annual bureau and mission 
strategic plans,[Footnote 33] to help identify and address long-term 
training needs across locations and all categories of employees in the 
department. To address prior OIG findings, State reported that the 
department had added a training "annex" to all bureau and mission 
plans. However, State officials indicated the plans no longer include 
a training annex, owing to the department's decision to streamline the 
strategic planning process in order to make it less burdensome for 
bureaus and posts. As a result, officials noted some bureau and 
mission plans include information on training goals, needs, or 
priorities, while others include no reference to training. None of the 
12 posts we interviewed reported receiving guidance from headquarters 
that could help the post prioritize, plan, and budget for training. 
Some bureau and post officials stated they could benefit from 
additional guidance, and indicated that a more systematic training 
planning process across bureaus and posts could be helpful. However, 
several officials noted that such a process could become a "paperwork 
exercise" unless there were also a commitment to follow-through with 
implementation. 

In addition, relevant to occupational training needs, the Foreign 
Affairs Manual states that training officers in each bureau are 
responsible for developing a bureau career guide outlining profiles of 
major occupations in the bureau including descriptions of the 
knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for each occupation and grade. 
However, most of the bureaus we met with had not developed a bureau 
career guide.[Footnote 34] Officials indicated they would generally 
rely instead on broader departmental guidance to help identify 
relevant training. For example, State guidance states that civil 
service employees must demonstrate competencies established by OPM. In 
addition, State has broadly identified "core precepts" for Foreign 
Service entry-, mid-, and senior-level employees, which are updated 
periodically. Technical competencies have also been identified for 
certain groups of employees, such as administrative or post management 
officers. Officials indicated that more specific roles and 
responsibilities, as well as any skills or abilities--though not 
necessarily training--required for different Foreign Service, civil 
service, and LE staff positions, are generally identified in job 
announcements. They noted they also rely on FSI guidance on training 
for employees in different career paths.[Footnote 35] 

Also, to help identify individual training needs, bureau and post 
officials noted that Foreign Service employees generally rely on 
career development officers, in addition to supervisors at post, to 
provide guidance and counseling on training and development, including 
identifying necessary training. However, some post officials noted 
this support may vary. A number of Foreign Service employees 
responding to the open-ended question on training in the 2009 American 
Foreign Service Association survey also cited concerns about career 
development officer support. For example, some said their career 
development officers generally had too many people assigned to them 
and were ineffective at disseminating relevant information; were not 
responsive to e-mails or phone calls; and were more focused on filling 
positions than on supporting Foreign Service Officers' career 
development. According to State's Bureau of Human Resources, as of 
October 2010, State had 41 career development officers (CDO), each 
supporting at least 250 Foreign Service generalists and specialists. 
They noted that serving specialists and mid-level generalists in 
particular, some CDOs support as many as 450 employees. The bureau 
also has two dedicated staff--an assignments officer and a training 
officer--who help ensure that entry-level personnel are enrolled in 
required training. Human resources officials said that recent 
increases in State personnel had presented challenges to the provision 
of career development counseling, and that, although State had created 
new entry-level CDO positions as a result, the need for additional mid-
level CDOs was under review. They added that they have also been 
working to streamline administrative and technical processes to allow 
officers to spend more of their time providing individual guidance and 
counseling on training. 

Further, although State encourages all employees to complete an 
individual development plan (IDP), which can be a component of an 
individual training needs assessment process, bureau and post 
officials indicated that few Foreign Service or civil service 
employees have completed an IDP. As a result, it is not clear whether 
Foreign Service and civil service employees have adequate opportunity 
to discuss with their supervisors any training they may need to 
improve individual performance or prepare for future assignments. We 
previously reported that the use of IDPs to identify both short-and 
long-term developmental needs of each employee can help an agency 
incorporate employees' developmental goals, and integrate the need for 
continuous and career-long learning, into its planning processes. 
[Footnote 36] State requires only certain entry-level civil service 
employees to complete an IDP. Some bureau officials stated they 
thought the IDP should be a broader requirement. Officials from 
several of the bureaus we met with noted that while the IDP is 
encouraged, it is not widely used by domestic bureau personnel, 
although training needs may be identified for civil service personnel 
as part of the annual performance appraisal process. Bureau and post 
officials indicated that, although training needs could be covered as 
part of the Foreign Service appraisal process, in contrast to the 
civil service appraisal, the Foreign Service appraisal form does not 
explicitly address training, and officials generally have not seen it 
in the appraisals. 

Post officials from 11 of the 12 posts we interviewed said their posts 
use a work development plan (WDP), similar to an IDP, for LE staff. 
Officials noted that posts are generally responsible for coordinating 
and overseeing LE staff training.[Footnote 37] Some of these posts 
said it is a general practice or requirement for supervisors to work 
with LE staff at post to complete a WDP, including identifying any 
training needs, as part of the annual appraisal process. Post 
officials noted that they may review the employee development plans or 
solicit broader input from supervisors or other relevant personnel at 
the post, to help identify and prioritize training as part of the 
post's annual budget and planning process. For example, officials at 
one post noted they annually solicit training needs from all sections 
at the post for the upcoming year and review the WDPs to compile a 
prioritized list of training. However, the senior human resources 
officer we spoke with at another post said that she primarily 
identifies training needs and puts together an annual budget request 
for training based on her own observations and oral discussions with 
relevant personnel at the post. She noted that although she had 
attempted to solicit broader, formal input from personnel at post on 
individual training needs, she had received minimal response. She 
added that she will review WDPs to help identify individual training 
needs, but because the WDP is not a requirement at post she must rely 
largely on her own observations and oral discussions with supervisors 
of LE staff. 

While State does not have a systematic, comprehensive training needs 
assessment process, training officials we interviewed from several 
bureaus and posts cited various areas of potential training need for 
Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff. For example, some bureau 
officials cited a greater general need for training personnel in areas 
such as project management, strategic planning, human resources, and 
budgeting, as well as in English and computer skills for LE staff in 
particular. Post officials also cited a general need for additional 
training in areas such as project and contract management and for 
strategic planning, public-private partnerships, NGO engagement, and 
enhanced coverage of certain countries in geographic area studies, 
among other areas.[Footnote 38] Further, a number of Foreign Service 
employees responding to the open-ended question on training in the 
2009 American Foreign Service Association annual survey cited a range 
of potential training needs. For example, respondents cited needs for 
additional training for generalists relevant to their particular areas 
of work; additional training for specialists, including for Office 
Management Specialists; additional and enhanced leadership training; 
and improved and expanded language training, including expansion of 
language training overseas. Respondents also cited the need for a 
greater focus on training through their careers, such as by 
establishing and enforcing minimum requirements at various career 
stages beyond the current mandatory requirements.[Footnote 39] State 
officials noted that State has increased attention to LE staff 
training and development in recent years, although some officials 
noted in the past, LE staff often received little or no training 
despite significant need for training at some posts. Because Foreign 
Service employees generally rotate to a new post every 2 years, LE 
staff often provide the longevity, continued presence, and support 
that are critical to the successful day-to-day operations of overseas 
missions.[Footnote 40] In June 2009, FSI conducted a survey of post 
management to identify LE staff training needs. Several bureau and 
post officials told us they considered the results of the survey in 
planning LE staff training. For example, officials representing the 
Bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs and South and Central Asian Affairs 
said that as a result of the survey, they identified a particular need 
for supervisory skills training for LE staff working at certain posts 
in those regions, and offered two relevant workshops in the region in 
fiscal year 2010. FSI officials noted that as a result of the 2009 
survey, they have been working to increase training offerings at posts 
by expanding the number and reach of adjunct faculty. They added that 
FSI plans to repeat the needs assessment periodically, though they 
have not set any specific time frames as of November 2010. 

Since 2007, State human resource reports also noted that bureaus have 
not formally conducted annual training needs assessments, and 
identified this as an issue that should be addressed to help provide a 
realistic basis for planning, budgeting, and directing training. 
According to the reports, the Bureau of Human Resources intended to 
form an interoffice working group to develop a comprehensive plan and 
implementation guidance to support a department-wide effort for 
assessing training needs. State officials said they had recently begun 
developing a plan to address the reports' findings, though they had 
not yet formed an interoffice working group as of November 2010. 

FSI Training Continuums Include Some Inaccurate and Incomplete 
Information: 

We found that documents on training--known as training continuums--
that FSI developed for employees do not include accurate and complete 
information on training. The continuums generally identify training 
and development for entry-, mid-, and senior-level employees, and 
contain other information related to career planning. We previously 
reported that providing transparent information for employees about 
career maps and paths, how training opportunities could help employees 
attain career goals, competency models, and training or professional 
requirements, can help agencies communicate the importance of training 
and their expectations for training programs to achieve results. 
[Footnote 41] FSI has developed and published various training 
continuums for State's Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff, 
including the Training Continuum for Civil Service Employees, the 
Training Continuum for Foreign Service Generalists, the Training 
Resource Guide for Foreign Service National Employees and Locally 
Employed Staff, and the Leadership and Management Training Continuum, 
among others.[Footnote 42] 

State's OIG reported that FSI began developing these training 
continuums in part to provide a framework for a departmental policy of 
mandatory training, as well as to provide road maps tailored to the 
particular needs of employees in various positions throughout their 
careers.[Footnote 43] In addition, the continuums state they were 
designed to provide a broad overview of appropriate training that 
should be considered as employees plan their careers in the 
department. For example, the training continuums provide information 
on leadership skills training requirements that State established 
under former Secretary of State Powell for mid-level and higher-ranked 
Foreign Service and civil service employees.[Footnote 44] The 
continuums also generally include information on other mandatory 
personnel training requirements, such as cyber security training, as 
well as information on recommended and suggested courses for 
employees. Specifically, the continuums state that required courses 
are defined as mandatory; recommended courses should be taken to 
provide knowledge and skills for successful job performance; and 
suggested courses are more specialized and should be taken depending 
upon job duties. In addition, the continuums generally include 
information on career development opportunities. For example, they 
note that State's civil service, mid-level rotational program provides 
opportunities for civil service mid-level employees to rotate to other 
bureaus to broaden their skills, increase their knowledge, and enhance 
their personnel and professional growth. They also provide information 
on State's Career Development Program for Foreign Service employees, 
which established certain mandatory and elective professional, 
leadership, language, and technical skills requirements that personnel 
must meet to be eligible for promotion to the Senior Foreign Service. 

However, we found several issues that raise questions about the 
usefulness and reliability of the continuums as resources for 
employees in planning their training and development. For example, 
although we found that the Training Continuum for Civil Service 
Employees lists diversity awareness, ethics, and orientation training 
as "required" for certain groups of employees, and as "recommended" 
for other groups, a key official from FSI's executive office stated 
that these courses are in fact mandatory requirements for all civil 
service employees. The official added that these mandatory 
requirements would also apply to Foreign Service personnel and are 
among the few across-the-board training requirements that State 
considers mandatory, along with cyber security and "No FEAR Act" 
training.[Footnote 45] In addition, LE staff have minimal mandatory 
training requirements other than cyber security and ethics training. 
The FSI official clarified that even though we found that some of the 
continuums list other, more specialized courses as required for 
certain employees, the department officially considers training 
mandatory, and tracks completion, only if the training is listed as 
such by statute. The FSI official said that in some cases, decisions 
regarding what courses would be listed in continuums as required, 
recommended, or suggested were not fully vetted throughout the agency, 
and that, as a result, the information may not be entirely accurate or 
complete. 

In addition, while officials noted that bureaus and posts may 
designate specific courses as required for certain groups of 
employees, we found that these requirements are not always identified 
in the training continuums or other guidance for employees. Several 
bureau and post officials noted that personnel would generally rely on 
the training continuums to identify necessary training, including any 
specialized training that may be required or helpful to them in 
performing their jobs. However, officials from the Bureau of 
International Organizations said that although FSI's course on 
mulitilateral diplomacy is required of all International Organizations 
personnel, it is not listed in the continuums. Training officials from 
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor said Foreign Service 
labor officers must take the FSI labor officer skills course, though 
it is not listed as a requirement in the continuum. Some bureau 
officials said that employee supervisors are generally responsible for 
ensuring that employees are aware of and take the required training. 
Although some bureaus and posts had developed their own training 
guidance--for example, on available or suggested training 
opportunities, or on procedures required to register for training--the 
guidance generally did not include information on any specific 
training designated as required, recommended, or suggested by the 
bureau or post for different employee groups. 

The official from FSI's executive office acknowledged that the 
continuums do not include complete and accurate information for 
employees on training, and noted they have not been reviewed to ensure 
they uniformly reflect departmental policies or standards. The 
official added that some of the continuums have not been updated in 
several years, there are not continuums for every employee group, and 
because the continuums include some discrepancies or inaccuracies, 
they should not be viewed as formal or official guidance. The official 
also noted that FSI was considering shifting to a new, standardized 
format for the training continuums going forward that would hopefully 
improve the process and make the continuums easier to update in an 
ongoing basis in the future. However, greater involvement and 
collaboration from other bureaus would be required in order for FSI to 
facilitate a comprehensive process to develop official continuums for 
each job series, and the official noted that some bureaus had not been 
very responsive to FSI's requests for input in the past. 

FSI officials noted that information included in the continuums 
regarding State's Career Development Program is official, as these 
program requirements have been formally approved by the department. 
The officials said that State has also developed separate guidance, 
called playbooks, for certain groups of Foreign Service employees 
regarding Career Development Program requirements.[Footnote 46] State 
officials noted that both the continuums and the playbooks are 
resources that can be used by employees to identify training and help 
plan career development, although the continuums were developed for 
general informational purposes and were not approved by agency 
management, unlike the playbooks. However, the Career Development 
Program only applies to State's Foreign Service employees. In 
addition, although the playbooks generally provide information on 
mandatory or elective leadership or technical skills training required 
for promotion, they do not provide broader information that is 
included in the continuums, such as information on recommended 
training that may not be relevant to promotion under the Career 
Development Program. 

Although State has not established mandatory training for all 
employees at every career stage, some bureau and post officials said 
that specific training requirements and additional guidance for 
different employee groups could be helpful. In response to the State 
OIG's prior recommendation that the department establish specific 
mandatory training for all employees at every career stage, State 
reported it intended to eventually mandate specific training for all 
employees throughout their careers; however, the mandatory training 
the department subsequently established initially focused on the 
leadership skills training. State also noted that although the 
department viewed training as critical to assuring that employees have 
the necessary skills to support State's mission, implementing broader 
mandatory requirements would have serious resource implications. 
Nevertheless, some bureau and post officials we interviewed indicated 
that improved guidance on training priorities by career track, as well 
as possibly establishing additional specialized mandatory training 
requirements, could heighten the focus on training and help ensure 
that employees get the training they need. 

State Has Not Developed Formal, Comprehensive Curriculum Design 
Guidance: 

Although State provided some examples of ways in which it aims to 
incorporate effective design practices for training and development 
efforts, we found that the department has not developed comprehensive 
written guidelines and criteria to be followed throughout the course 
design process. Our prior work identified several key indicators of 
effective training programs related to the training design process, 
such as mechanisms, procedures, or explicit criteria for: 

* determining whether to design training programs in-house or obtain 
services from a contractor or external source; 

* comparing merits of different delivery mechanisms (e.g., classroom 
or computer-based training) and for determining the appropriate mix of 
mechanisms to ensure efficient and cost-effective delivery; 

* ensuring an environment conducive to effective training through 
employment of quality instructors, facilitators, mentors, and coaches; 

* involvement of line managers, technical experts, human capital 
professionals, and others to develop an integrated way to address 
specific performance gaps; and: 

* incorporating measures of effectiveness into course designs. 
[Footnote 47] 

State has made an effort to incorporate effective design practices 
into its training for Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff. 
For example, in demonstration of its efforts to identify cost-
effective and robust options for designing training and development, 
State shared sample letters of obligation, such as a letter regarding 
its decision to provide in-house training services for an FSI language 
course following a streamlined cost competition. State also noted that 
its training includes a mix of delivery mechanisms, including 
classroom, distance learning, and on-the-job training, as delineated 
in its training continuums and schedule of courses. According to FSI 
officials, FSI employs civil service training experts and Foreign 
Service subject matter experts or technical experts to teach courses, 
and FSI's Curriculum and Staff Development Division in the School of 
Professional and Area Studies offers courses for staff on training 
design and delivery. They noted that all FSI instructors and course 
managers are required to take training in theory and best practices in 
adult learning.[Footnote 48] In April 2007, FSI launched an adjunct 
faculty program, which allows State personnel who demonstrate 
appropriate qualifications to provide training domestically or 
overseas for FSI course credit. In addition, to help ensure the 
integrated development of training to help address specific 
performance gaps, according to State, FSI utilizes working groups 
comprised of curricula and education experts, as well as technical 
experts and practitioners of the subject matter in the course design 
process. As a specific example, State developed and implemented a plan 
to provide a combination of classroom and distance learning, 
auditorium sessions, user guides, and deskside assistance to domestic 
and overseas personnel to ensure the successful launch of a new 
technology platform for combining cables and e-mails.[Footnote 49] 
Also, officials provided some examples in which results of course 
evaluations were incorporated into subsequent course offerings. 

Nevertheless, although FSI officials said that FSI generally follows 
accepted industry standards in developing courses, they stated that 
FSI does not have comprehensive, documented guidance or standards to 
be followed throughout the curriculum design process for personnel 
training. While FSI has developed some instructional and curriculum 
guidance that is included in its Administrative Procedures Handbook, 
the sections relevant to course development are specific to distance 
learning and not classroom training. In addition, the handbook notes 
that the sections containing course development process and style 
guides for distance learning are under development and not available. 
Further, the handbook does not include clear guidance for determining 
appropriate training delivery mechanisms or whether to design training 
in-house or obtain outside services, or for incorporating training 
evaluation results into course designs. Because of the lack of formal 
curriculum design guidance, FSI's permanent staff, as well as those 
who may be on temporary assignment or working under contract to 
develop training, may be unaware of and not applying consistent and 
appropriate practices and standards across the board throughout the 
training design process.[Footnote 50] 

State Lacks Data Needed to Assure That Support for Training Is 
Consistent and Appropriate: 

Although State collects some information on the cost and delivery of 
training, the department does not collect data needed for an analysis 
and comparison of training provided to employees in different groups, 
bureaus, regions, or posts. As a result, State cannot be assured that 
it is providing consistent and appropriate support and funding for 
training and development. Our prior work highlights the importance of 
quality data to evaluating the quality and effectiveness of training 
and development efforts, and found that tracking the cost and delivery 
of training is a key attribute of an effective training program. 
[Footnote 51] We also found that the ability of an agency to 
demonstrate consistent and appropriate support and funding for 
training, and evidence that the agency provides needed tools and 
resources to managers and employees for training, are indicators of 
effective training programs. 

While State provided data on overall funding for training personnel 
that showed some trends, the department does not track data that would 
allow a more detailed analysis and comparison across various employee 
groups and locations. State provided data on overall funding for 
training State personnel from fiscal years 2006 to 2011, which showed 
the training budget increased from about $157 million in fiscal year 
2006 (adjusted for inflation, expressed in 2010 dollars) to around 
$255 million in fiscal year 2010 (adjusted for inflation, expressed in 
2010 dollars).[Footnote 52] (See table 5.) 

Table 5: Funding for State Personnel Training, Fiscal Years 2006-2011, 
Not Adjusted for Inflation: 

FSI[A]: 
2006 training budget: $117,564,000; 
2007 training budget: $122,178,000; 
2008 training budget: $121,172,000; 
2009 training budget: $129,060,000; 
2010 training budget: $179,044,000; 
2011 request: $182,279,000. 

DS security training[B]: 
2006 training budget: $15,273,000; 
2007 training budget: $12,933,000; 
2008 training budget: $31,270,000; 
2009 training budget: $46,730,000; 
2010 training budget: $64,021,000; 
2011 request: $71,580,000. 

IT central fund[C]: 
2006 training budget: $6,806,000; 
2007 training budget: $6,845,000; 
2008 training budget: $8,559,000; 
2009 training budget: $7,161,000; 
2010 training budget: $6,080,000; 
2011 request: $6,787,000. 

MRV fund[D]: 
2006 training budget: $6,692,000; 
2007 training budget: $9,111,000; 
2008 training budget: $6,300,000; 
2009 training budget: $6,170,000; 
2010 training budget: $6,170,000; 
2011 request: $6,170,000. 

Total[E]: 
2006 training budget: $146,335,000; 
2007 training budget: $151,067,000; 
2008 training budget: $167,301,000; 
2009 training budget: $189,121,000; 
2010 training budget: $255,315,000; 
2011 request: $266,816,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Notes: 

FSI = Foreign Service Institute. 

DS = Bureau of Diplomatic Security. 

IT = information technology. 

MRV = Machine Readable Visa. 

[A] FSI's budget includes funding for FSI classroom and technology- 
based (e.g. distance or online learning) training programs for 
domestic and overseas Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff. 

[B] DS security training funding includes funding to support DS 
training to provide personnel with necessary security, investigative, 
and law enforcement skills. These amounts also include funding for 
tactical and counter-threat training for State personnel deploying to 
Iraq. 

[C] Training-related funding under the IT Central Fund includes 
funding for FSI's Student Training Management System and for FSI IT 
learning infrastructure, as well as to train and develop the skills of 
State's IT staff to support agency operations. 

[D] Training-related funding from Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fees is 
used for FSI consular training activities including classes, 
conferences, workshops, and online courses for consular officers, 
Information Management Specialists, FSNs, and consular agents. MRV 
fees are paid by visa applicants. 

[E] While information presented in this table on the training budget 
represents the majority of funding for training State personnel, it 
does not fully reflect State's efforts to train personnel, because the 
department does not maintain complete information on funding for all 
training-related efforts. 

[End of table] 

State officials noted that FSI's budget makes up the majority of 
funding for training State personnel and includes resources for 
training space, technology, instructors, curriculum development, 
salaries of full-time students at FSI, and FSI-funded external 
training costs. Bureaus also allot some money for external training 
not covered by FSI--bureau allotments ranged from a total of about $3 
million in fiscal year 2006 to about $4 million in fiscal year 2009. 
However, according to State officials, the estimated funding for 2006 
through 2009 does not fully reflect State's efforts to train 
personnel, due to the way State tracks funding. Specifically, the 
amounts do not include: 

* funding spent by posts for training offered at post or for travel 
per diem for Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff to 
participate in training regionally or in Washington, D.C.; 

* funding spent by bureaus other than FSI for internal training-
related efforts; or: 

* some additional training-related costs that may not be detailed as 
training-related in State's operating budget. 

In addition, State officials said that State does not collect detailed 
data showing funding spent for internal and external training; funding 
for training Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff, and for 
employees in certain specific employee groups; and funding by bureau, 
region, and post. 

State officials noted that although they lack a detailed breakdown of 
training funding, they track some data on employee participation in 
training. However, these data also do not allow for a complete or 
detailed analysis and comparison of training for employees in 
different groups or locations. Although State provided data on 
training hours and courses completed by Foreign Service, civil 
service, and LE staff for FSI classroom, distance learning, language, 
and external training from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, State 
officials said that a more detailed breakdown of this information by 
bureau, region, post, or employee group is not available. Further, 
although FSI's training continuums provide some guidance for personnel 
on required, recommended, and suggested training for employees in 
different groups, officials said that State generally only centrally 
tracks employee completion of certain specific training mandated by 
statute, such as cyber security training, as well for the required 
leadership skills courses. State does not generally track 
participation in other required, recommended, or suggested training. 
As a result, for example, State could not provide data regarding the 
percentage of foreign affairs or political officers that had completed 
required, recommended, or suggested training for their areas of work. 
This type of data could provide information on potential variations or 
inconsistencies in training and help ensure employees are given 
sufficient and appropriate training and development opportunities. For 
example, data that State provided on the percentage of mid-and senior-
level Foreign Service and civil service personnel who had completed 
the respective required leadership courses as of May 2010 showed some 
differences among employee groups (see table 6). The data showed that 
100 percent of Ambassadors had completed the Ambassadorial Seminar. In 
addition, the data showed that a majority of Senior Foreign Service 
and Senior Executive Service, as well as Foreign Service and civil 
service GS-13 to GS-15 equivalents (FS-03 to FS-01), had taken the 
required leadership training, however, a greater percentage of civil 
service at each level were unenrolled or untrained. State reported 
that Foreign Service employees who are recommended for promotion to 
the next level must complete the respective requirement within a year 
or the promotion will not become effective; in comparison, civil 
service personnel are informed of the requirement but monitor their 
own compliance. 

Table 6: Completion of Required Leadership Skills Training, as of May 
2010: 

Percentage trained: 
Ambassadors: 100%; 
SES: 68.7%; 
SFS: 94.6%; 
GS-15: 61%; 
FS-01: 79.5%; 
GS-14: 69%; 
FS-02: 86.5%; 
GS-13: 72%; 
FS-03: 87.5%. 

Percentage enrolled:
Ambassadors: 0%; 
SES: 7.2%; 
SFS: 2.3%; 
GS-15: 2.7%; 
FS-01: 2%; 
GS-14: 4%; 
FS-02: 2.5%; 
GS-13: 4%; 
FS-03: 3.5%. 

Percentage unenrolled/untrained: 
Ambassadors: 0%; 
SES: 24.1%; 
SFS: 3.1%; 
GS-15: 36.3%; 
FS-01: 18.5%; 
GS-14: 27%; 
FS-02: 11%; 
GS-13: 24%; 
FS-03: 9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

Note: 

GS = General Schedule. 

FS = Foreign Service. 

SES = Senior Executive Service. 

SFS = Senior Foreign Service. 

[End of table] 

Although State tracks some data related to training funding and 
delivery, the department does not have sufficient information that 
could be used to ensure consistent and appropriate support for 
training, or to help determine whether managers and employees have 
needed training tools and resources. This is especially important 
given evidence of variances in training across the department. 
Training officials we interviewed at a number of bureaus and posts 
cited varying support for employee training and development. While 
some bureaus and posts indicated they had sufficient funding and 
support for training, others noted they faced significant resource 
challenges that impacted the ability of employees to get necessary 
training. For example: 

* Bureaus. Officials from several bureaus said that finding time or 
resources for training generally was not a challenge. However, this 
was not the case for other bureaus. For example, officials 
representing two of State's regional bureaus noted that a lack of time 
was a main constraint preventing employees from taking needed 
training. A training official representing two other bureaus said that 
taking employees away from their day-to-day work for training poses 
significant challenges, given that some employees have heavy 
workloads. The official added that in her experience, although a 
majority of bureau civil service supervisors have fulfilled the 
mandatory leadership training requirements, supervisors sometimes 
enroll but cancel owing to the "crisis of the day." In addition, 
although officials from two bureaus said they provide individual 
guidance or counseling to each Foreign Service and civil service 
employee in the bureau, officials representing some other bureaus 
indicated their competing responsibilities do not allow them to spend 
much time providing guidance or counseling, and that their primary 
role was to process training requests. 

* Posts. Training officials we interviewed at 12 posts cited varied 
support and resources for training. While several posts said they had 
enough funding for training, other posts said funding was insufficient 
or had fluctuated in recent years. Further, officials at most of the 
posts we interviewed said finding time for training can be a challenge 
at post. Only one post said time was not an issue, because the post 
has a policy that allows each employee to set aside up to 2 to 3 hours 
a week for training. Officials from several posts, as well as a number 
of respondents to the 2009 American Foreign Service Association survey 
noted although Foreign Service personnel are generally expected to 
obtain needed training in between tours, personnel may not have time 
for the training due to the departing post's holding onto staff as 
long as possible and the subsequent post's requiring staff to arrive 
as soon as possible. In addition, while two posts noted they benefited 
from having personnel dedicated to training full time, training 
officials from the majority of posts we interviewed said their posts 
had no one dedicated to training full time.[Footnote 53] For example, 
the mission training officer at one large post said she is only able 
to spend about 10 percent of her time on training-related 
responsibilities.[Footnote 54] 

* Regional training. State also has regional centers that provide 
training, among other services, in partnership with FSI in three 
locations: the Western Hemisphere Affairs Training Division at the 
Florida Regional Center (Florida center) in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; 
the Frankfurt Regional Support Center (Frankfurt center) Training and 
Development Center in Frankfurt, Germany; and the Regional Employee 
Development Center (Bangkok center) in Bangkok, Thailand. Officials 
noted these centers primarily support training for LE staff in their 
respective regions, and they offer training on-site and at other posts 
in their regions. However, support for the centers varies, and the 
centers do not formally serve employees working in each of State's 
regions worldwide. For example, the Florida center is the only center 
with a formal agreement with FSI; under the agreement, the Bureau of 
Western Hemisphere Affairs funds an FSI staff member to direct and 
provide training through the Florida center. Officials from the 
Frankfurt center said they did not need a formal agreement in part 
because they already have personnel with adjunct faculty status. In 
contrast, officials from the Bangkok center said that they hoped to 
establish a more formal agreement that would allow for an FSI 
representative to be assigned to the center to help them further 
develop their program and obtain adjunct faculty status for their two 
full-time LE staff trainers. Officials from the Bankgok center noted 
these two trainers currently cannot teach any FSI courses and can only 
teach courses developed by the center that would not be eligible for 
FSI course credit.[Footnote 55] In addition, officials from the 
regional centers indicated that regional training services for the 
Bureaus of African Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, and to some extent 
South and Central Asian Affairs are currently ad hoc, given that they 
are not formally served by any of the above centers. Officials from 
the Frankfurt center said that demand for their training from regions 
not formally covered by other centers, including from employees who 
work at posts in the African Affairs and Near Eastern Affairs regions 
in particular, often exceeds what the Frankfurt center can provide. 
For some general services operations courses, the officials said they 
have had 120 applicants for 10 to 25 spots. 

State Has Not Developed a Formal Plan for Evaluating the Effectiveness 
of Training: 

Although State has various training evaluation mechanisms in place, 
the department lacks a training data collection and analysis plan. As 
a result, it is not clear whether or how State systematically makes 
decisions regarding how training programs will be evaluated using 
different methods or tools, or how results will be used. Our prior 
work highlights the importance of planning and conducting evaluations 
of the effectiveness of training and development efforts and notes 
that a data collection and analysis plan can set priorities for 
evaluations and systematically cover the methods, timing, and 
responsibilities for an agency's data collection.[Footnote 56] While 
State has implemented mechanisms to evaluate training, including 
course evaluations and an annual training survey, these mechanisms do 
not fully incorporate LE staff, and primarily focus on participant 
satisfaction or reaction to training, rather than desired results, 
such as improved quality or efficiency of work. 

State has a range of training evaluation mechanisms and procedures to 
obtain feedback from supervisors and employees on training, such as 
FSI's annual training survey, and mid-and-post-training course 
evaluations. FSI has developed and updated lists of evaluations used 
for different courses, which generally include information such as the 
intended recipients (e.g., students or supervisors), frequency, and 
timing of the course evaluation, as well as responsibilities for 
compiling the evaluations and for reviewing responses received. FSI 
also provided several examples of adjustments to training efforts in 
response to feedback received through its course evaluation efforts. 
For example, the course manager for Office Management Specialists 
training provided a November 2009 memorandum summarizing a number of 
changes made to the entry-level training as a result of course 
evaluations, among other factors. In addition, FSI provided a summary 
of results of an October 2009 offering of the Iraq Provincial 
Reconstruction Team course. The summary highlighted changes that had 
been made prior to the October offering as well as recommendations for 
modifications to be made in the subsequent offering of the course. 

However, while FSI has compiled lists of evaluation mechanisms used 
for different courses, these lists do not include guidance on setting 
priorities for training evaluations, or how to determine appropriate 
methods, timing, or responsibilities for evaluating training and 
development efforts. They also do not include guidelines to help 
ensure State makes an ongoing effort to improve the quality and 
breadth of data gathered. We found several potential gaps and areas 
for improvement in State's efforts to evaluate personnel training. For 
example, FSI's annual training survey is sent to a random sample of 
State's Foreign Service and civil service employees and eligible 
family members but not LE staff. Likewise, several training-related 
questions are also included in the department's biannual Quality of 
Work Life Survey, which is sent to a random sample of Foreign Service 
and civil service employees but not to LE staff.[Footnote 57] In 
addition, although FSI conducted a June 2009 survey of LE staff 
training needs, the survey was sent to post management, not to LE 
staff, and FSI had not set specific time frames for repeating the 
survey as of November 2010. Several officials noted that LE staff 
often identify training needs or issues through the process of 
creating a Work Development Plan, but not all of the posts we 
interviewed required these plans.[Footnote 58] 

In addition, respondents to the 2010 Annual Training Survey indicated 
they were generally satisfied overall with FSI training delivery, 
programs offered, and customer service.[Footnote 59] However, 
relatively fewer respondents indicated they were satisfied with the 
number of courses offered and their ability to attend courses in their 
geographic region. Additionally, some respondents said that they did 
not receive training that would have been helpful, such as tradecraft 
(e.g., consular, political, or public diplomacy), leadership and 
management, language, or information technology end-user training. 
However, despite the diverse training needs and requirements of State 
personnel, FSI officials told us they were not able to break out 
responses to determine whether there were any differences, for 
example, between responses of Foreign Service and civil service 
employees, or those serving at headquarters or in overseas regions. 

Course evaluations used by FSI's schools vary and generally focus on 
participant satisfaction or reaction to training, rather than 
knowledge gained, behavior change, or impact of the training.[Footnote 
60] We reviewed examples of course evaluations used by each of FSI's 
schools--the Leadership and Management School, School of Applied 
Information Technology, School of Language Studies, and School of 
Professional and Area Studies--as well as within each of the 10 
divisions under the School of Professional and Area Studies.[Footnote 
61] We found that courses generally incorporated mid-course and end-of-
course student surveys, while some also included post-training surveys 
(e.g., typically several months after the end of the course), and a 
few included supervisors. The surveys included various numbers of 
multiple choice and open-ended questions and generally addressed 
participant satisfaction or reaction to training but less frequently 
included the types of questions that could be used to help determine 
on-the-job behavior change or impact of training. For example, for the 
Stability Operations division under FSI's School of Professional Area 
Studies, we reviewed several end-of-course surveys and post-training 
surveys. We found one end-of-course survey (Iraq Familiarization) 
included only questions regarding participant satisfaction with course 
content; one end-of-course survey (Foundations of Reconstruction & 
Stabilization Operations) included questions regarding participant 
satisfaction with training as well as self-assessments of knowledge 
gained; and four others (Afghanistan Familiarization, Afghanistan and 
Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Team end-of-course, and Afghanistan 
Provincial Reconstruction Team post-training) included the above types 
of questions as well as a question regarding on-the-job behavior 
change resulting from training. 

While some of FSI's training evaluation mechanisms include questions 
that relate to on-the-job behavior change or the impact of training, 
FSI's Director of Curriculum and Staff Development said that the 
institute's course evaluations tend to focus primarily on participant 
reaction to training. The official noted that the evaluations focus to 
some extent on knowledge or skills gained, and less on behavior change 
or impact of training. FSI officials noted that determining the direct 
impact of training can be difficult, particularly in terms of any 
resulting cost savings. 

Performance Measures Do Not Fully Address Training Goals: 

State's performance measures for training generally do not fully 
address training goals. We previously reported that an agency's use of 
measures to assess training and development efforts is an important 
aspect of effective training programs.[Footnote 62] Our prior work 
also noted that training and development performance measures, aligned 
with the agency's mission and goals, can be used to help ensure 
accountability and assess progress toward achieving results. 
Indicators of effective training programs include the use of both 
quantitative and qualitative measures that provide meaningful data on 
training policies and practices, and show how specific efforts promote 
mission accomplishment. 

State and the U.S. Agency for International Development's Strategic 
Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012 includes one overarching strategic 
goal related to training: "strengthening consular and management 
capabilities." However, the goal is not focused exclusively on 
training; the plan states that the "overarching goal…in this area is 
to provide the best visa and American Citizen services possible…and to 
ensure a high quality workforce, including locally employed staff." 
Among other priorities listed for the goal, one relates to training 
and notes that State and FSI will "integrate systems and coordinate 
strategies to improve the skill base, diversity, and performance of 
our workforce." The plan does not include any targets or measures 
specific to training. 

While State's broader strategic plan does not include any training 
measures, the bureau strategic resource plans for FSI and for the 
Bureau of Human Resources include several training-related goals and 
measures, linked to the broader departmental strategic goal on 
training. Specifically, the plans include a total of five training- 
related goals, with two or three indicators or measures for each goal. 
However, the measures generally do not fully address the goals and are 
output-rather than outcome-related.[Footnote 63] As a result, they do 
not provide a clear means of determining whether State's training 
efforts achieve desired results. Table 7 provides further details 
about each of the training goals and measures. 

Table 7: FSI and Bureau of Human Resources Training-related Goals and 
Measures, with GAO Assessments: 

FSI's fiscal year 2012 strategic resource plan includes four training 
goals, with two indicators, or measures, listed for each goal: 

Goal: Workforce meets priority diplomatic and operational requirements 
as a result of FSI training; 
Goal description: Goal description includes priorities and objectives 
such as: 
* Expand and enhance language training;
* Support training in stability operations;
* Support for new hire training;
* Increase the number of leadership training offerings to match 
increased hiring and stream of mid-level employees progressing to 
management levels; and; 
* Enhance public diplomacy training, including social media and 
technology training courses; 
Goal measures and GAO assessment: The goal's two measures, "language 
training success rate at FSI," and "development of training continuum 
to support State's Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization," are 
both output measures and do not fully address the adjacent priority 
areas for the goal. For example, the measures do not address support 
for new hire training or public diplomacy training. 

Goal: Global workforce can more widely access training through 
distance learning technologies; 
Goal description: Goal description includes priorities and objectives 
such as: 
* Enhance support for distance learning and update technological 
training platforms for distance and classroom learning, such as 
through use of Smart boards and a more robust video distribution 
platform with expanded reach; 
* Undertake major effort to update and integrate employee, training, 
and learning management systems to ensure ability to meet training 
data reporting requirements and better support regions and posts; and; 
* Expand distance learning language training and improve its efficacy, 
for example, through creating learning "portals" between students and 
teachers and leveraging social media; 
Goal measures and GAO assessment: The goal's two measures, "distance 
learning growth: increased use of FSI's learning management system and 
distance learning," and "increase in foreign affairs distance learning 
products available," are both output measures and do not fully address 
goal priorities or objectives, such as the effort to update and 
integrate data systems for training purposes. 

Goal: Management practices promote efficiency and effectiveness; 
Goal description: Goal description includes priorities and objectives 
such as: 
* Develop additional LE staff adjunct faculty; 
* Continue to support regional training centers; and; 
* Modify curricula to address change to new governmentwide framework 
for management of sensitive but unclassified information (to be 
labeled as controlled unclassified information); 
Goal measures and GAO assessment: The goal's two measures, "overall 
satisfaction with training at FSI," and "FSI cost per student 
trained/enrollment," do not fully address all priorities or objectives 
included in the goal description, such as adjunct faculty and regional 
training. In addition, the first measure is not a clearly adequate 
indicator of effectiveness. Also, because LE staff are not included in 
FSI's annual training survey of employee satisfaction, the measure 
does not encompass all State employees. 

Goal: Core training continues to fulfill baseline requirements and 
meet new challenges/new skills; 
Goal description: Goal description includes priorities and objectives 
such as: 
* Expand training for mid-level supervisors; 
* Enhance area studies training, as well as higher-level proficiency 
in priority languages like Arabic and Chinese; and; 
* Continue providing entry and mid-level training in basic and 
priority areas including information technology, political, 
economic/commercial, consular, public diplomacy, and counterterrorism; 
Goal measures and GAO assessment: The two measures for this goal, "FSI 
language training satisfaction rate," and "FSI information technology 
training satisfaction rate," are both output measures and do not fully 
address the goal priorities or objectives, such as area studies and 
entry-and mid-level training in political, economic/commercial, 
consular, public diplomacy, and counterterrorism. 

The Bureau of Human Resource's fiscal year 2012 strategic resource 
plan includes one training-related goal, with three indicators, or 
measures for the goal: 

Goal: Strengthen diplomacy by effectively recruiting, hiring, 
developing, and assigning employees; 
Goal description: Training-related priorities or objectives for the 
goal address the bureau's performance management responsibilities, 
including responsibilities to ensure employees have needed diplomacy, 
language, leadership, and other skills to understand and operate in a 
changing environment; 
Goal measures and GAO assessment: The three measures, "percent of 
overseas positions vacant," "percent of language designated positions 
at overseas missions filled by employees who fully meet or exceed the 
language requirement," and "recruiting, examining, and evaluation 
success as measured against annual Foreign Service hiring goals," do 
not fully address the training priorities or objectives, as they 
primarily address Foreign Service vacancies and recruitment. The 
second measure may indirectly relate to language training, as it could 
be achieved by hiring personnel who already have the requisite skills, 
as well as through language training. 

Source: GAO analysis of State information. 

[End of table] 

Conclusions: 

State has developed an extensive program to equip its personnel to 
fulfill State's leadership role in world affairs and to advance and 
defend U.S. interests. In recent years in particular, State officials 
noted the department has enhanced its focus on training and 
development of Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff, such as 
by establishing leadership skills training requirements and increasing 
distance learning. State has many training practices and processes in 
place reflecting the elements of effective training programs, 
including the development of an annual workforce training plan and 
hundreds of classroom and distance learning offerings, as well as 
cross-training and other career development opportunities for 
personnel. State has incorporated the use of technology to enhance 
training efforts, and implemented oversight mechanisms such as 
training agreements to help ensure employees take advantage of 
legitimate training. In addition, State has various mechanisms in 
place to evaluate training, such as an annual training survey and 
course evaluations. 

However, we found strategic weaknesses and room for improvement in 
several key areas. First, without a systematic, comprehensive 
assessment of training needs, State cannot be assured training is 
connected to true needs and priorities. Second, without transparent, 
complete, and accurate information for all employees on training 
opportunities, including on any required or recommended training for 
specific positions, State employees may be hampered in their efforts 
to plan for training and development throughout their careers. In 
addition, without taking several steps to address weaknesses in 
State's efforts to evaluate personnel training, it is not clear that 
State is sufficiently able to assess whether employees have the 
information, competencies, and skills they need to work effectively. 
For example, it is not clear that State's training performance 
measures provide meaningful information to help the department 
determine the quality and effectiveness of training efforts. State 
also lacks a plan for training data collection and analysis, as well 
as adequate mechanisms for determining whether the department is 
providing consistent and appropriate support and funding for training 
all employees--including LE staff. 

State's budget and focus on training have increased in recent years, 
but the department has also faced, and will likely continue to face, 
fluctuating and constrained resources and competing priorities when 
determining what training is critical to its mission. Without 
concerted efforts to further incorporate effective practices, State 
cannot ensure training resources are targeted strategically, are not 
wasted, and achieve cost-effective and timely results desired, and 
thus cannot be assured that its employees are trained and equipped to 
meet the challenges of their mission. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of State take the following five 
actions: 

To help ensure that State's personnel training is connected to 
improving individual and agency performance and that department 
resources are directed to actual training needs and priorities, direct 
FSI and the Bureau of Human Resources, in collaboration with other 
bureaus and offices, as appropriate, to develop and implement a plan 
for a systematic, comprehensive training needs assessment process, 
incorporating all bureaus and posts. 

To enhance State's efforts to provide transparent, complete, and 
accurate information to help employees plan training and development 
throughout their careers, direct FSI and other bureaus and offices, as 
appropriate, to collaborate in developing and updating information for 
employees on training to ensure that employees have complete and 
accurate guidance, including information on any mandatory, required, 
and recommended training for specific employee groups. 

To help ensure that State's performance measures for training provide 
meaningful data and more fully address the department's training 
goals, direct FSI and the Bureau of Human Resources to review the 
performance measures and revise or enhance the measures, as 
appropriate. 

To enhance State's capacity to evaluate workforce training, direct FSI 
and the Bureau of Human Resources to develop a data collection and 
analysis plan for training, including guidance for determining the 
methods, timing, and responsibilities for training data collection, as 
well as how results will be used. 

To improve State's ability to determine whether it is providing 
consistent and appropriate support and funding for employee training 
and development across employee groups and locations, direct FSI and 
the Bureau of Human Resources to identify ways to improve the 
collection and analysis of training data and results, such as by 
enhancing the level of detailed information gathered to determine 
whether employees across groups and locations are getting needed 
training, and enhancing efforts to determine the impact of training. 
These efforts should also include steps to further incorporate LE 
staff into State's training evaluation mechanisms. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State. State 
provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV. 

State generally agreed with our recommendations, and expressed 
appreciation for the report's recognition of the wide variety of 
training State offers for the department's Foreign Service, civil 
service, and locally employed staff worldwide. State highlighted the 
importance of assessing training needs, and noted that regular review 
of training performance measures is appropriate. The department also 
stated that it strives to improve the accuracy, completeness, and 
usefulness of training data, and would look for ways to enhance its 
ability to assess the effectiveness of training and development 
efforts across employee groups and locations. 

In our draft report, we recommended that the Secretary of State direct 
FSI to develop formal curriculum design guidance identifying 
guidelines and criteria to be followed throughout the course 
development process, to help ensure that clear and consistent criteria 
and procedures are followed throughout the curriculum design process. 
After we provided the draft report to State, the department provided 
documentation developed by FSI to address this recommendation. 
Specifically, State provided an official document developed in 
December 2010 that describes and lays out FSI's course design 
procedures and guidance, including for determining course objectives, 
identifying quality instructors, and evaluating course design. As a 
result of these actions, we have removed the relevant recommendation 
from the final report. 

State also indicated that senior leadership from the department's 
Bureau of Human Resources and FSI were not interviewed as part of this 
review. However, we disagree with this characterization of our review. 
During the course of our review we conducted numerous interviews with 
relevant officials representing 26 State bureaus and offices in 
Washington, D.C., including senior officials from FSI and the Bureau 
of Human Resources--in some cases on multiple occasions. We also 
conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with State officials 
with training-related responsibilities at 12 overseas missions, and 
from State's regional training centers located in Bangkok, Thailand; 
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and Frankfurt, Germany. Additionally, we had 
multiple discussions and e-mail communications regarding training- 
related issues and questions with officials from FSI and the Bureau of 
Human Resources who were designated by State as our primary contacts 
throughout the audit. These officials provided up-to-date and accurate 
information to us on State's training efforts in response to our 
inquiries and represented the views of senior management, where 
applicable (see appendix I for additional information on our 
objectives, scope, and methodology). 

State also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated 
throughout the report, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of the report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
after the report date. At that time, we will send copies of the report 
to interested congressional committees and to the Secretary of State. 
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO web 
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. Other GAO contacts and staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Jess T. Ford: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To address our objectives, our analysis focused primarily on the 
Foreign Service Institute's (FSI) training, including leadership, 
management, professional, and area studies training contributing to 
diplomatic readiness of the Department of State's (State) Foreign and 
civil service personnel, as well as locally employed staff (LE staff) 
overseas. In light of recent GAO work addressing shortfalls in State 
personnel's foreign language skills, this report does not focus on 
language training.[Footnote 64] This report does not include an 
assessment of "hard skills" (e.g. security and law enforcement) 
training provided by State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security within its 
scope. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions: 
(1) What is State's purpose and structure for training personnel? (2) 
To what extent does State's training for personnel incorporate the 
elements of effective federal training programs? [Footnote 65] 

To identify State's purpose and structure for training personnel, we 
reviewed and analyzed legislative, regulatory, and State policy and 
procedural criteria relevant to training, including information 
contained in State's Foreign Affairs Manual on key training roles and 
responsibilities. We also collected, reviewed, and analyzed documents 
and data including State's annual training plan; departmental and 
human capital strategic and workforce planning documents; 
organizational charts; information available on State's Internet and 
intranet Web pages; information and data on recent FSI course 
offerings; and data on personnel participation in training for fiscal 
years 2006 to 2010. To assess the reliability of data on FSI course 
offerings and on personnel participation in training, we reviewed 
relevant documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. 
We determined data on FSI course offerings and on personnel 
participation in training were sufficiently reliable to permit an 
analysis of where courses are being offered and of the relative amount 
of time Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff spent in 
training, including for FSI language and non-language classroom and 
distance learning, and external training. To further our understanding 
of State personnel training, we interviewed key officials at FSI, the 
Bureau of Human Resources, and other bureaus and offices in 
Washington, D.C. 

To determine the extent to which State's training for personnel 
incorporates the elements of effective federal training programs, in 
addition to the above, we completed a training assessment with input 
from State, using the prior GAO guidance.[Footnote 66] Specifically, 
we examined State documents and data relevant to each of the 32 
attributes identified in the GAO guidance, and the indicators 
associated with each attribute. We used the results of this assessment 
to identify strategic weaknesses in State's training based on criteria 
contained in GAO and the Office of Personal Management (OPM) guidance, 
as well State and other legislative and regulatory guidance and 
policy. We reviewed training evaluation mechanisms used by each of the 
four FSI schools--the Leadership and Management School, School of 
Applied Information Technology, School of Language Studies, and School 
of Professional and Area Studies--as well as within each of the 10 
divisions under the School of Professional and Area Studies.[Footnote 
67] We examined mid- , end-of-course, and post-training course 
evaluation results received for a nonrandom sample of about 37 
offerings of various courses by the different schools and divisions. 
We also reviewed results of broader evaluations of FSI's consular and 
language training. Although the results of these evaluations cannot be 
generalized to all courses and locations, they represent results for a 
broad range of courses across all schools and divisions. We examined 
State data on overall funding for training from fiscal years 2006 to 
2010, as well as on the percentage of personnel that had completed 
State's mandatory leadership skills training requirements as of May 
2010. We reviewed results of FSI's annual training survey of Foreign 
and civil service employees, as well as responses to training-related 
questions included in State's biannual Quality of Work Life Survey and 
State's responses to OPM's biannual Federal Human Capital Survey. To 
assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed relevant 
documentation, including information regarding survey methodology and 
response rates. We determined that these data were sufficiently 
reliable to provide a general indication of employee satisfaction with 
training. We also analyzed responses to training-related questions 
included in the American Foreign Service Association's 2009 survey of 
State Foreign Service members, including more than 1,000 responses to 
an open-ended question regarding whether and how State training could 
be improved.[Footnote 68] While the results of this survey are not 
generalizeable, they provided us with valuable insights into potential 
areas for improvement. 

In addition, to enhance our understanding of State's training 
practices and potential issues or challenges, we interviewed relevant 
officials from 26 State bureaus and offices in Washington, D.C., 
including FSI, the Bureau of Human Resources, and the six geographic 
bureaus. For example, we interviewed senior officials from FSI 
including FSI's Director, Deputy Director, and the Executive Director 
for Management, as well as senior leadership representing each of the 
four FSI schools--the Leadership and Management School, School of 
Applied Information Technology, School of Language Studies, and School 
of Professional and Area Studies. Within the Bureau of Human 
Resources, we met with senior officials including the Chief of Career 
Development, Division Director of Career Development and Assignments, 
Director and Deputy Director of Overseas Employment, and Director of 
Policy Coordination. We also conducted semi-structured telephone 
interviews with State officials with training-related responsibilities 
at 12 overseas missions. We selected a nongeneralizeable sample of 
countries designed to ensure geographic diversity; our criteria for 
selection also included factors such as a range of post sizes and 
hardship differentials. We selected two missions located in each 
region--Africa, the Americas (Western Hemisphere), East Asia and the 
Pacific, Europe and Eurasia, Middle East and North Africa, and South 
and Central Asia.[Footnote 69] Since we did not conduct interviews 
with a generalizeable sample of overseas missions, our observations 
from these interviews are illustrative but may not be representative 
of training at all overseas locations. We also interviewed officials 
from State's regional training centers located in Bangkok, Thailand; 
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and Frankfurt, Germany. Finally, we 
interviewed key officials from nongovernmental organizations including 
the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Stimson 
Center.[Footnote 70] 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 to January 2011 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Attributes for Review of an Agency Training and 
Development Program: 

Following is a compilation of the 32 questions or attributes explored 
in detail throughout GAO guidance on assessing an agency's strategic 
training and development efforts.[Footnote 71] These attributes are 
designed for federal agencies to consider in ensuring that training 
and development investments are targeted strategically and not wasted 
on efforts that are irrelevant, duplicative, or ineffective. The 
attributes are distributed across the four interrelated elements of 
the training and development process--planning, design, 
implementation, and evaluation. The guidance also includes numerous 
corresponding indicators for each attribute. 

Planning: 

a. Does the agency have training goals and related performance 
measures that are consistent with its overall mission, goals, and 
culture? 

b. To what extent do the agency's strategic and annual performance 
planning processes incorporate human capital professionals in 
partnership with agency leadership and other stakeholders in 
addressing agency priorities, including training and development 
efforts? 

c. How does the agency determine the skills and competencies its 
workforce needs to achieve current, emerging, and future agency goals 
and missions and identify gaps, including those that training and 
development strategies can help address? 

d. How does the agency identify the appropriate level of investment to 
provide for training and development efforts and prioritize funding so 
that the most important training needs are addressed first? 

e. What measures does the agency use in assessing the contributions 
that training and development efforts make toward individual mastery 
of learning and achieving agency goals? 

f. How does the agency incorporate employees' developmental goals in 
its planning processes? 

g. How does the agency integrate the need for continuous and lifelong 
learning into its planning processes? 

h. Does the agency consider governmentwide reforms and other targeted 
initiatives to improve management and performance when planning its 
training and development programs? 

i. Does the agency have a formal process to ensure that strategic and 
tactical changes are promptly incorporated in training and development 
efforts as well as other human capital strategies as needed? 

Design: 

a. What steps does the agency take to ensure that training is 
connected to improving individual and agency performance in achieving 
specific results? 

b. How is the design of the training or development program integrated 
with other strategies to improve performance and meet emerging 
demands, such as changing work processes, measuring performance, and 
providing performance incentives? 

c. Does the agency use the most appropriate mix of centralized and 
decentralized approaches for its training and development programs? 

d. What criteria does the agency use in determining whether to design 
training and development programs in-house or obtain these services 
from a contractor or other external source? 

e. How does the agency compare the merits of different delivery 
mechanisms (such as classroom or computer-based training) and 
determine what mix of mechanisms to use to ensure efficient and cost-
effective delivery? 

f. Does the agency determine a targeted level of improved performance 
in order to ensure that the cost of a training or development program 
is appropriate to achieve the anticipated benefit? 

g. How well does the agency incorporate measures of effectiveness into 
courses it designs? 

Implementation: 

a. What steps do agency leaders take to communicate the importance of 
training and developing employees, and their expectations for training 
and development programs to achieve results? 

b. Is there a training and performance organization that is held 
accountable, along with the line executives, for the maximum 
performance of the workforce? 

c. Are agency managers responsible for reinforcing new behaviors, 
providing useful tools, and identifying and removing barriers to help 
employees implement learned behaviors on the job? 

d. How does the agency select employees (or provide the opportunity 
for employees to self-select) to participate in training and 
development efforts? 

e. What options has the agency considered in paying for employee 
training and development and adjusting employee work schedules so that 
employees can participate in these developmental activities? 

f. Does the agency take actions to foster an environment conducive to 
effective training and development? 

g. What steps does the agency take to encourage employees to buy in to 
the goals of training and development efforts, so that they 
participate fully and apply new knowledge and skills when doing their 
work? 

h. Does the agency collect data during implementation to ensure 
feedback on its training and development programs? 

Evaluation: 

a. To what extent does the agency systematically plan for and evaluate 
the effectiveness of its training and development efforts? 

b. Does the agency use the appropriate analytical approaches to assess 
its training and development programs? 

c. What performance data (including qualitative and quantitative 
measures) does the agency use to assess the results achieved through 
training and development efforts? 

d. How does the agency incorporate evaluation feedback into the 
planning, design, and implementation of its training and development 
efforts? 

e. Does the agency incorporate different perspectives (including those 
of line managers and staff, customers, and experts in areas such as 
financial, information, and human capital management) in assessing the 
impact of training on performance? 

f. How does the agency track the cost and delivery of its training and 
development programs? 

g. How does the agency assess the benefits achieved through training 
and development programs? 

h. Does the agency compare its training investments, methods, or 
outcomes with those of other organizations to identify innovative 
approaches or lessons learned? 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: State Organization: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart] 

Top level: 
Secretary of State (S); 
* Counselor and Chief of Staff (S/COS); 
* United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 
Administrator; 
* United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations (USUN). 

Second level, reporting to the Secretary of State: 
* Deputy Secretary of State D(L); 
* Deputy Secretary of State D(S); 
* Executive Secretariat (S/ES) Executive Secretary. 

Third level, reporting to the Secretary of State: 
* Under Secretary for Political Affairs (P): 
- African Affairs (AF) Assistant Secretary; 
- European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) Assistant Secretary; 
- East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP)Assistant Secretary; 
- Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) Assistant Secretary; 
- South and Central Affairs (SCA) Assistant Secretary; 
- Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) Assistant Secretary; 
- International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) Assistant 
Secretary; 
- International Organizations (IO) Assistant Secretary. 
* Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs (E): 
- Economic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) Assistant Secretary. 
* Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs 
(T): 
- International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) Assistant 
Secretary; 
- Political-Military Affairs (PM) Assistant Secretary; 
- Verification, Compliance and Implementation (VCI) Assistant 
Secretary. 
* Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R): 
- Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA) Assistant Secretary; 
- International Information Programs (IIP) Coordinator; 
- Public Affairs (PA) Assistant Secretary. 
* Under Secretary for Management(M): 
- Administration (A) Assistant Secretary; 
- Consular Affairs (CA) Assistant Secretary; 
- Diplomatic Security and Foreign Missions (DS)Assistant Secretary; 
- Foreign Service Institute (FSI) Director; 
- Human Resources (HR) Director General of the Foreign Service and 
Director of Human Resources; 
- Information Resource Management (IRM) Chief Information Officer; 
- Medical Services (M/MED) Director; 
- Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) Director; 
- Resource Management (RM) Chief Financial Officer. 
* Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs (G): 
- Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Assistant Secretary; 
- Oceans and Int'l Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) 
Assistant Secretary; 
- Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) Assistant Secretary; 
- Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) 
Ambassador at Large. 

Fourth level, reporting to the Secretary of State: 
* Intelligence and Research (INR)Assistant Secretary; 
* Legislative Affairs (H) Assistant Secretary; 
* Office of the Chief of Protocol (S/CPR) Ambassador; 
* Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR) Director; 
* Office for Counterterrorism (S/CT) Coordinator and Ambassador at 
Large; 
* Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance (F) Director; 
* Office of Global AIDS Coordinator (S/GAC) Ambassador at Large; 
* Office of Global Women's Issues (S/GWI) Ambassador at Large; 
* Office of Inspector General (OIG) Inspector General; 
* Office of International Energy Coordinator (S/IEC) Coordinator; 
* Office of Legal Adviser (L) Legal Adviser; 
* Office of Policy Planning (S/P) Director; 
* Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) Coordinator; 
* Office of War Crimes Issues (S/WCI) Ambassador at Large. 

Source: State. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at 
the end of this appendix. 

United States Department of State
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

January 6, 2011: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Department 
of State: Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve Strategic Planning 
and Evaluation of Training for State Personnel," GAO Job Code 320696. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Bert Curtis, Policy Analyst, Bureau of Human Resources at (202) 647-
2655. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO — Jess Ford: 
DGHR — Nancy J. Powell: 
State/OIG — Evelyn Klemstine: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve Strategic Planning and 
Evaluation of Training for State Personnel (GA0-11-241, GAO Code 
320696): 

The Department thanks GAO for its evaluation of the training of the 
Department's three major work forces: Civil Service, Foreign Service 
and Locally Employed staff. The Department appreciates GAO's 
recognition of the wide variety of training at the Foreign Service 
Institute (FSI), around the world and in the virtual realm as we seek 
to put the right people into the right place at the right time with 
the right skills. 

The Department has long welcomed GAO's interest in the training and 
development of our employees. Recent GAO studies have approached the 
Department's training from a variety of perspectives. GAO's report 
(GA0-11-108) on activities intended to improve inter-agency national 
security collaboration describes the Department's leadership among 
civilian agencies in promoting interagency understanding via a myriad 
of FSI courses, rotations, and details. As a result of GAO's report 
(GAO-09-955) on foreign language programs at the Department, we are 
developing a complex model to predict the Department's resource needs 
in language training, which will be the precursor of a second model 
for training overall, if funding allows. 

We were pleased to note that of the 32 attributes of our training 
programs reviewed by GAO, the vast majority were found to be 
satisfactory, with only six areas, by GAO's account, in need of 
improvement. We believe that one, in particular, has already been 
accomplished fully by the Department and we will further explore our 
options on the others. 

We would like to note that, unfortunately, senior leadership in the 
Department's Bureau of Human Resources (HR) and FSI were not 
interviewed as a part of the GAO review. We believe that such 
interaction would have added substantially to an understanding of the 
Department's training programs. 

Recommendation 1: Develop and implement a plan for a systematic, 
comprehensive training needs assessment process, incorporating all 
bureaus and posts. We agree that the assessment of training needs is a 
critical part of the human resource tool kit. HR contracted for two 
comprehensive job analyses for Foreign Service generalists and 
specialists that were completed, respectively in 2007 and 2009. The 
job analyses asked questions about employee preparation for specific 
tasks, and FSI used this data to modify its course offerings to 
address training needs. 

Due to the fact that the Civil Service does not have an up-or-out 
system parallel to that of the Foreign Service, a career "roadmap" for 
the Department's Civil Service workforce will not have the same level 
of detail or complexity as the Foreign Service's Career Development 
Program. The Office of Civil Service Human Resource Management (CSHRM) 
already has well-defined training plans for entry level employees in 
our Mission Critical Occupations, the majority of whom are hired 
through highly structured federal internship and fellowship programs. 
CSHRM is preparing an action plan to conduct a more formal training 
needs assessment for the Department's Civil Service overall. 

The Department's diverse Locally Employed staff workforce of over 
43,000 hired at our 270 unique posts requires flexibility in assessing 
needs and planning and administering training. The Department has 
determined that decentralized training decisions are practical and 
necessary. Often training plans need to be adjusted to accommodate the 
changing budget outlook for a fiscal year. In addition, training needs 
can change rapidly as priorities shift quickly due to unexpected 
vacancies and subsequent reorganization. Post's HRO and/or Management 
Officers working in close collaboration with individual supervisors 
are in the best position to assess training needs. 

Much of the training at our posts is accomplished via on-the-job 
experience, a form of training not explicitly covered by this review. 
Since other training overseas is achieved with post-specific funding, 
the Director General considers it essential that all posts renew their 
commitment to training -- keeping in mind the Quadrennial Diplomacy 
and Development Review (QDDR) recommendations -- and establish 
training budgets and plans early in the fiscal year. These training 
budgets are difficult to "wall off" against priorities and protect 
against routine encroachment, a challenge that may prove particularly 
daunting in the coming year, when creative solutions, such as virtual 
training opportunities, will be essential. 

Recommendation 2: Collaborate in developing and updating information 
for employees on training to ensure that employees have complete and 
accurate guidance, including information on any mandatory, required, 
and recommended training for specific employee groups. Our Foreign 
Service has comprehensive guidance available in the form of the Career 
Development Program. Mandatory training is outlined in the 
Department's Foreign Affairs Manual which is official Department 
guidance. We agree with GAO that we should seek to improve agency-wide 
career development guidelines for the Civil Service workforce. Over 
the next three years, we will focus on mid-level employees in our 
Mission Critical Occupations via the training needs assessment plan 
mentioned in Recommendation #1. We will develop or adjust Department 
guidelines once we have completed the assessment and coordinate with 
FSI to identify appropriate training. [See comment 1] 

Recommendation 3: Develop formal curriculum design guidance 
identifying guidelines and criteria to be followed throughout the 
course development process. We do not agree that the Department lacks 
such formal guidance. FSI has a rigorous process for course design and 
approval, which includes consultation with FSI's many experts in adult 
learning methodology, peer review, analysis of target audience, 
learning objectives, and delivery mechanisms as well as those with 
subject matter expertise. For easier reference, and to facilitate 
understanding of our methodology, FSI has recently documented its 
course design process within one document. During our review of the 
draft report, we presented this document to GAO. 

Recommendation 4: Review training performance measures and revise or 
enhance the measures, as appropriate. FSI originally developed 
performance measures in the Bureau Strategic and Resource Plan (BSRP) 
as part of OMB's Performance Assessment Rating Tool. However, we agree 
that regular review of performance measures is appropriate. 

Recommendation 5: Develop a data collection and analysis plan for 
training, including guidance for determining the methods, timing, and 
responsibilities for training data collection, as well as how results 
will be used. The Department currently collects training delivery data 
for its workforces in a variety of custom designed systems and 
regularly strives to improve the accuracy, completeness and usefulness 
of this data. We agree that additional tools in the area of 
effectiveness would be useful and agree to examine whether our 
existing reporting systems might be modified, within existing 
resources, toward this end. 

Over the last 18 months, FSI has expanded its use of "Level 3" 
evaluations-—measuring the workplace impact of training after the 
student has returned to the job. FSI plans to continue this expansion, 
and if technological, financial and human resources are available, 
work with HR to implement a more sophisticated means of data 
collection and analysis which could feed into Recommendation #6. 

Recommendation 6: Identify ways tq improve the collection and analysis 
of training data and results across employee groups and locations. 
Bureau training officers have access to training information by skill 
and location through the data warehouse known as the Knowledge Center. 
FSI and HR agree to explore ways to ensure that bureau executive 
directors are made aware of the potential uses of this data and--if 
technological, financial and human resources are available-—to 
identify potential improvements to existing training delivery and 
effectiveness based upon the data collection and anal sis plan. 
Special emphasis would be given to training effectiveness by location 
of the employee and employee skill codes. 

Following are GAO's comments on State's letter dated January 6, 2011. 

GAO Comment: 

1. We still believe that gaps exist in guidance available for the 
Foreign Service, as well as for civil service and locally employed 
staff, because key tools used to provide employees with information on 
training are not comprehensive. Specifically, we found that documents 
for employees on training--known as training continuums--that FSI 
developed do not include complete and accurate information. While the 
continuums state that they were designed to provide a broad overview 
of appropriate training that should be considered as employees plan 
their careers in the department, including information on mandatory, 
recommended, and suggested courses, we found issues that raised 
questions about the usefulness and reliability of the continuums as 
employee resources. For example, we found that specific training 
requirements designated by bureaus and posts for certain groups of 
employees are not always identified in the training continuums. A key 
official from FSI's executive office stated that in some cases, 
decisions regarding what information would be listed in the continuums 
were not fully vetted throughout the agency. The official acknowledged 
that the continuums do not include complete and accurate information 
for employees on training, and noted that the documents have not been 
reviewed to ensure they uniformly reflect departmental policies or 
standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Jess T. Ford, (202)512-4268 or fordj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Anthony Moran, Assistant 
Director; Lisa Helmer; Shirley Min; Joe Carney; Virginia Chanley; 
Kieran Cusack; David Dayton; Patrick Lockett; Reid Lowe; and Mary 
Moutsos provided significant contributions to the work. Etana Finkler, 
Farhanaz Kermalli, and Mona Sehgal provided technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Foreign Language Capabilities: Departments of Homeland Security, 
Defense, and State Could Better Address Their Foreign Language Needs 
and Capabilities and Address Shortfalls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-715T]. Washington D.C.: July 29, 
2010. 

Aviation Security: Efforts to Validate TSA's Passenger Screening 
Behavior Detection Program Underway, but Opportunities Exist to 
Strengthen Validation and Address Operational Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-763]. Washington D.C.: May 20, 2010. 

Department of State: Persistent Staffing and Foreign Language Gaps 
Compromise Diplomatic Readiness. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1046T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
24, 2009. 

Department of State: Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing 
Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-874]. Washington, D.C.: September 
17, 2009. 

Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent 
Foreign Language Shortfalls. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955]. Washington, DC.: September 
17, 2009. 

Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and Accountability 
Would Enhance Training and Performance Management for Claims 
Processors. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-561]. 
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2008. 

State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist 
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1154T]. Washington D.C.: August 1, 
2007. 

Border Patrol: Costs and Challenges Related to Training New Agents. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-997T]. Washington, 
D.C.: June 19, 2007. 

Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls Persist 
Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-894]. Washington D.C.: August 4, 
2006. 

Department of Homeland Security: Strategic Management of Training 
Important for Successful Transformation. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-888]. Washington D.C.: September 
23, 2005. 

Aviation Security: Flight and Cabin Crew Member Security Training 
Strengthened, but Better Planning and Internal Controls Needed. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-781]. Washington D.C.: 
September 6, 2005. 

Human Capital: A guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. Washington D.C.: March 1, 
2004. 

Human Capital: Selected Agencies' Experiences and Lessons Learned in 
Designing Training and Development Programs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-291]. Washington D.C.: January 30, 
2004. 

U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department Expands Efforts but Faces 
Significant Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-951]. Washington, D.C.: September 
4, 2003. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] According to State, the total number of Foreign Service, civil 
service, and locally employed personnel increased from about 57,000 in 
September 2006 to more than 66,000 as of September 2010, an increase 
of about 17 percent. 

[2] State's LE staff include foreign nationals and U.S. citizen 
residents employed via direct-hire appointments, personal services 
agreements, or personal services contracts. 

[3] We previously developed guidance for assessing federal strategic 
training and development efforts, including identifying four essential 
and interrelated elements of the training and development process: (1) 
planning, (2) design, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation. The 
guidance includes key attributes of effective federal training 
programs to consider when assessing each of the four elements, along 
with indicators related to each attribute. This guidance can be used 
to identify potential gaps or areas where improvements may be made to 
help ensure that training and development investments are targeted 
strategically and not wasted on efforts that are irrelevant, 
duplicative, or ineffective. GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing 
Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004). 

[4] GAO, Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address 
Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 
2009). 

[5] The 10 divisions under the School of Professional and Area Studies 
are Management Tradecraft, Area Studies, Consular Training, Curriculum 
and Staff Development, Economic and Commercial Studies, Office 
Management Training, Orientation, Political Training, Public 
Diplomacy, and Stability Operations. 

[6] We provided input to the training-related questions that were 
included in the American Foreign Service Association survey. 

[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[8] Missions include embassies, consulates, and branch offices. 

[9] State currently has approximately 150 civil service employees 
serving in temporary Foreign Service appointments to provide support 
in critical posts overseas. 

[10] The new positions are in addition to positions vacated through 
attrition. 

[11] Public Law No. 96-465, 22 U.S.C. §3901 et. seq. 

[12] Codified at Title 5 U.S.C. Chapter 41 (5 U.S.C. §4101 et. seq.). 
This chapter, with a few exceptions, does not apply to the Foreign 
Service of the United States. 

[13] See Executive Order No. 11348, April 20, 1967, 32 F.R. 6335, as 
amended by Executive Order No. 12107, December 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055. 

[14] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[15] In addition to State employees, FSI offers training to employees 
from approximately 50 other federal agencies. 

[16] Our calculations of FSI's course offerings omitted 1,200 
offerings of a 1-hour end-user course on State's new departmentwide 
messaging system. 

[17] According to State officials, the Regional Service Center in 
Frankfurt also provides services, including training, to State 
employees posted in the South and Central Asian Affairs region, 
because this region was once part of the Bureau of European and 
Eurasian Affairs. Employees at posts in bureaus that do not operate 
regional service centers may take FSI courses at one of the other 
centers on a space-available basis. 

[18] FSI reviews and approves applications for external training and 
maintains records of all external training it funds, in order to 
prevent duplicative efforts. FSI may contribute up to $995 per 
external training course per quarter for each Foreign Service and 
civil service employee. 

[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[20] While an agency is not necessarily expected to reflect all of the 
indicators associated with each of the 32 attributes identified in the 
GAO guidance, we used the guidance as a flexible framework for 
identifying potential areas for improvement in State's workforce 
training efforts. 

[21] 5 C.F.R. § 410.201. 

[22] We did not assess "hard skills" security and law enforcement 
training provided by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security as part of this 
review. 

[23] While prior GAO guidance does not identify a specific target 
percentage or amount of an agency's budget that should be dedicated to 
training, State's workforce training plan includes information on the 
amount of funding that State dedicates to training as overall evidence 
of the department's commitment and support for training and 
development. 

[24] State uses a model of competencies established by OPM for civil 
service executives, managers, and supervisors to perform effectively 
in their positions. For junior-, mid-, and senior-level Foreign 
Service professionals, State developed precepts specifying key skills 
and expected levels of performance. 

[25] In addition, during fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the total 
number of hours that personnel spent completing distance learning 
courses more than doubled--from about 113,000 hours in fiscal year 
2006 to about 254,000 in fiscal year 2009. Data include hours spent 
completing all distance learning course offerings, including custom- 
developed courses, by Foreign Service, civil service, and LE staff 
over the time period. 

[26] Officials noted training policies and practices may vary by post, 
depending in part upon the laws of the host country, which may 
influence post decisions regarding the management of training at post. 

[27] According to State, the 2010 annual training survey was sent to a 
random sample of 5,105 Foreign Service and civil service employees, as 
well as eligible family members. Among other things, the survey asked 
respondents to rate FSI's training delivery methods, training 
programs, and customer service. We determined that the results of this 
survey were sufficiently reliable to provide a general indication of 
employee satisfaction with training. 

[28] According to State, the department conducts the Quality of Work 
Life Survey in odd years, when OPM does not conduct the Human Capital 
Survey. The 2007 survey was sent to a random sample of Foreign Service 
and civil service employees. We determined that the results of this 
survey were sufficiently reliable to provide a general indication of 
employee satisfaction with training. State officials told us results 
of the 2009 survey were not available as of November 2010. 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[30] According to OPM's Training Needs Assessment Handbook: A Guide 
for Conducting a Multi-level Needs Assessment (1994), an 
organizational needs assessment generally occurs at the highest level 
in the organization where broad, cross-cutting, cross-functional 
guidance is established and budget or resource decisions for training 
are made; an occupational needs assessment focuses on what 
competencies and characteristics are required for critical occupation 
groups; and an individual needs assessment focuses on specific 
knowledge, skills, and abilities required by each employee, viewed 
within the context of the agency's strategic goals. 

[31] See Executive Order No. 11348, April 20, 1967, 32 F.R. 6335, as 
amended by Executive Order No. 12107, December 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055. 

[32] Office of Inspector General, Inspection of the Foreign Service 
Institute, ISP/I-99-16 (Washington, D.C., Department of State, 1999); 
and Compliance Follow-up Review of the Inspections of the Bureau of 
Human Resources and the Foreign Service Institute, 01-HR-R-060 
(Washington, D.C., Department of State, September 2001). 

[33] Each of State's bureaus and missions develops an annual bureau or 
mission strategic plan, which includes a description of planned 
activities for the coming year, as well as goals and indicators or 
measures for determining progress, and requested funding. Beginning 
with fiscal year 2012, the plans are referred to as strategic resource 
plans. 

[34] While most of the bureaus we met with had not developed a bureau 
career guide, one bureau developed guidance for employees that 
includes the type of information called for in the Foreign Affairs 
Manual; specifically, it includes professional development and 
training goals and objectives for different groups and levels of 
employees in the bureau, as well as detailed lists of required and 
recommended bureau-sponsored, FSI, and external training for different 
groups and levels of bureau employees. 

[35] See pp. 32-36 of this report for further discussion regarding FSI 
guidance on training for employees in different career paths. 

[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[37] Posts that we interviewed indicated that because Foreign Service 
employees generally receive any needed training either prior to 
arriving at a post or between tours, training at the post is generally 
focused on LE staff. 

[38] FSI officials noted that FSI currently offers training in each of 
these areas, and that in some cases, resource constraints may prevent 
personnel from enrolling in relevant courses. They added that FSI 
generally decides whether or not to continue, expand, or modify course 
offerings based on enrollment data and on feedback received. 

[39] In response to prior GAO recommendations related to language 
training needs and challenges, State officials said State has taken 
steps including developing an analytical model to better assess 
resources needed, including training, to meet language requirements. 
State has also designated a senior Foreign Service Officer as the 
"Strategic Language Coordinator," who focuses on language issues and 
works to ensure a strategic approach to addressing foreign language 
needs. They added State also has a foreign language working group that 
meets regularly, which recently tightened requirements for getting 
language requirements waived. Officials also said State provided 
additional guidance to help posts determine language requirements for 
different positions, and is continuing to review the process. 

[40] A large number of LE staff serve in roles such as local security 
guards, drivers, or maintenance workers. Others may provide mission 
support in office management, fraud investigations, or visa 
assistance, among other areas. State officials noted although many LE 
staff could benefit from training in support functions, such as 
customer service and supervisory skills, a smaller number need 
training in more substantive areas, such as public diplomacy. 

[41] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[42] Other continuums include the Training Continuum for Foreign 
Service Financial Management, General Services, and Human Resource 
Officers; the Foreign Affairs Life Skills Training Continuum; the 
Language Continuum; the Training Continuum for Office Management 
Specialists; and the Training Continuum for Foreign Service IT 
Professionals. According to State, FSI is in the process of finalizing 
a continuum for Foreign Service Facility Managers. In addition, the 
Bureau of Diplomatic Security has training continuums for Security 
Engineering Officers, Intelligence Research Analysts, Security 
Technical Specialists, and Special Agents/Criminal Investigators. 

[43] State's OIG previously recommended the department develop 
processes for identifying and projecting training needs and establish 
specific mandatory training for all employees at every career stage. 
OIG, ISP/I-99-16 and 01-HR-R-060. 

[44] Specifically, the leadership training generally includes 1 to 2 
weeks of basic, intermediate, and advanced leadership skills training 
for Foreign Service and civil service personnel at the mid-level and 
above; employees new to the Senior Executive Service and the Senior 
Foreign Service, as well as new Ambassadors, must also enroll in 
respective senior or ambassadorial seminars. 

[45] The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and 
Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act), P.L. 107-174, requires federal agencies 
to provide training to employees about their rights under 
antidiscrimination and whistleblower laws. 

[46] Specifically, the officials said that State has developed Career 
Development Playbooks to provide formal guidance to certain groups of 
Foreign Service employees regarding State's Career Development Program 
requirements. After reviewing a draft of this report, State officials 
noted that the new, standardized format FSI developed for the training 
continuums no longer includes information on the Career Development 
Program, because the new format streamlines the information that is 
included in the continuums and provides links to further information 
available on the Bureau of Human Resources' and FSI's internal Web 
sites. 

[47] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[48] FSI's training design workshop covers topics such as determining 
training needs for a course, specifying training goals and objectives, 
selecting appropriate training methodologies, and documenting a 
training design for conducting the training. 

[49] State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset, SMART. 

[50] In response to a draft of this report, State provided new 
evidence of recent steps taken by the department to address our 
finding regarding the lack of formal curriculum design guidance. See 
p.53 of this report for more information. 

[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[52] To identify trends in the training budget, we adjusted these 
numbers for inflation; however, funding data presented in the table 
represent the actual training budget. 

[53] These posts did not necessarily indicate that they needed a full- 
time training official; for example, one small post indicated it did 
not need a full-time training official. 

[54] This post does have a full-time foreign language training 
coordinator, although the mission training officer is the primary 
official responsible for non-language training at post. 

[55] In November 2010, FSI officials stated that FSI intends to place 
an FSI trainer at the Bangkok center by the end of 2010, with the aim 
of expanding adjunct faculty in that location. 

[56] Such a plan could also include guidelines to help ensure the 
agency makes an ongoing effort to improve the quality and breadth of 
data gathered. Our prior work also noted that developing and using 
such a plan can guide an agency in a systematic approach to assessing 
the effectiveness and efficiency of both specific training and 
development programs and more comprehensively assessing its entire 
training and development effort. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[57] State officials noted that the Quality of Work Life Survey is 
managed by OPM, and it is not within State's purview to change its 
scope. 

[58] FSI officials stated they rely primarily on supervisors of LE 
staff to evaluate training for LE staff, as they believe the 
supervisors are in the best position to assess any further staff 
training needs. 

[59] According to State, the 2010 annual training survey was sent to a 
random sample of 5,105 Foreign Service and civil service employees, as 
well as eligible family members. The survey asked respondents to rate 
FSI's training delivery methods, training programs, and customer 
service, among other things. We determined that the results of this 
survey were sufficiently reliable to provide a general indication of 
employee satisfaction with training. 

[60] Training experts commonly refer to four progressive levels of 
training evaluation: level one measures reaction, or how participants 
feel about various aspects of the training; level two measures 
learning, or knowledge acquired due to training; level three measures 
behavior, or the extent to which participants change on-the-job 
behavior as a result of training; and level four measures results or 
impact, such as higher productivity, reduced cost, lower employee 
turnover, or improved quality of work. 

[61] The 10 divisions under the School of Professional and Area 
Studies are Management Tradecraft, Area Studies, Consular Training, 
Curriculum and Staff Development, Economic and Commercial Studies, 
Office Management Training, Orientation, Political Training, Public 
Diplomacy, and Stability Operations. 

[62] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[63] Our prior work highlights the importance of outcome metrics for 
training programs, to ensure accountability and assess progress toward 
achieving results. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[64] See GAO, Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to 
Address Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 
2009). In response to prior GAO recommendations related to language 
training needs and challenges, State officials said State has taken 
steps including developing an analytical model to better assess 
resources needed, including training, to meet language requirements. 
State has also designated a senior Foreign Service Officer as the 
"Strategic Language Coordinator," who focuses on language issues and 
works to ensure a strategic approach to addressing foreign language 
needs. They added State also has a foreign language working group that 
meets regularly, which recently tightened requirements for getting 
language requirements waived. Officials also said State provided 
additional guidance to help posts determine language requirements for 
different positions, and is continuing to review the process. 

[65] Previous GAO work has developed guidance for assessing federal 
strategic training and development efforts, including identifying four 
essential and interrelated elements of the training and development 
process: (1) planning, (2) design, (3) implementation, and (4) 
evaluation. The guidance includes key attributes of effective federal 
training programs to consider when assessing each of the four 
elements, along with indicators related to each attribute. This 
guidance can be used to identify potential gaps or areas where 
improvements may be made to help ensure that training and development 
investments are targeted strategically and not wasted on efforts that 
are irrelevant, duplicative, or ineffective. GAO, Human Capital: A 
Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, DC: Mar. 1, 
2004). 

[66] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. 

[67] The 10 divisions under the School of Professional and Area 
Studies are Management Tradecraft, Area Studies, Consular Training, 
Curriculum and Staff Development, Economic and Commercial Studies, 
Office Management Training, Orientation, Political Training, Public 
Diplomacy, and Stability Operations. 

[68] We provided input to the training-related questions that were 
included in the American Foreign Service Association's survey. 

[69] Specifically, we conducted interviews with training officials 
from missions in Kenya and Nigeria in Africa, Mexico and Suriname in 
the Americas, China and the Marshall Islands in East Asia and the 
Pacific, Switzerland and Ukraine in Europe and Eurasia, Egypt and 
Algeria in the Middle East and North Africa, and India and Uzbekistan 
in South and Central Asia. 

[70] We conducted interviews with key officials from nongovernmental 
organizations that have reported on issues related to training for 
State personnel in recent years. See Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, The Embassy of the Future (Washington, D.C.: 
2007), and The American Academy of Diplomacy, A Foreign Affairs Budget 
for the Future: Fixing the Crisis in Diplomatic Readiness (Washington, 
D.C.: October 2008). The Stimson Center was a contributor to the 
American Academy of Diplomacy report. 

[71] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, DC: Mar. 1, 
2004). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: