This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-791 
entitled 'Information Technology: Training Can Be Enhanced by Greater 
Use of Leading Practices' which was released on July 26, 2004.

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.

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

June 2004: 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: 

Training Can Be Enhanced by Greater Use of Leading Practices: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-791]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-791, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Effective training of information technology (IT) staff, as called for 
in the E-Government (E-Gov) Act of 2002, is essential to developing and 
retaining a qualified workforce. In an earlier report (GAO-03-390), we 
identified 22 leading practices, grouped into 5 key training management 
processes, used by private-sector companies to implement effective IT 
training. These practices suggest approaches that government agencies 
could consider. 

To assess IT training in the federal government, including its use of 
leading practices, we were asked to determine, among other things, to 
what extent federal agencies use our leading practices, the major 
obstacles in providing effective IT training and how agencies address 
them, and the progress the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is 
making in issuing policies and performing evaluations to encourage 
agencies to provide effective IT training.

What GAO Found: 

Although federal agencies differ widely in how much IT training they 
provide, their use of the 22 leading IT training practices that we 
identified was generally not extensive. Of these practices, only 5 were 
in use to a great or very great extent in a majority of agencies (see 
figure below). In particular, of the three practices we identified in 
the area of evaluating training, none was widely used. For example, for 
the practice of collecting information on how job performance is 
affected by training, only three agencies reported use to a great or 
very great extent.

The most commonly cited obstacles to effective IT training were funding 
and the time training takes away from work. To address these obstacles, 
agencies are looking at ways to reduce training time and costs—for 
example, by greater use of e-learning. 

OPM has made limited progress in issuing policies or performing 
evaluations regarding IT training. The E-Gov Act sets requirements for 
agency IT training programs. To provide oversight, it requires OPM to 
issue policies to promote the development of performance standards for 
training, and to evaluate agency implementation of the act’s IT 
training provisions. These policies are particularly important in view 
of the lack of extensive agency use of the evaluation practices we 
identified. OPM has begun drafting guidance, but it has not issued 
policies or evaluated agency implementation of the act. Until policies 
are issued and progress is measured, oversight of federal IT training 
will continue to fall short of what the act calls for.

Percentage of Agencies Using Leading Practices Extensively: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making recommendations to OPM, including that it issue IT 
training policies and evaluate implementation of the training 
provisions of the E-Gov Act.

In response to a draft of this report, OPM disagreed with the 
conclusions on its role and efforts with respect to federal IT 
training. Most other agencies generally agreed with the report or had 
no comment. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-791.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Dave Powner at (202) 
512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Information Technology: Federal IT Training: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Abbreviations: 

APPL: Academy of Program and Project Leadership: 

BLM NTC: Bureau of Land Management National Training Center: 

CIO: Chief Information Officer: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

E-Gov Act: E-Government Act of 2002: 

GoLearn: Gov Online Learning Center: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

IDP: Individual Development Plan: 

IRMC: National Defense University Information Resources Management 
College: 

IT: Information Technology: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PMDP: Project Management Development Process: 

STAR: Strategic and Tactical Advocates for Results: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Letter June 24, 2004: 

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jim Turner: 
House of Representatives: 

The rapid pace of technological change, with its potential to transform 
the way the government delivers services, makes information technology 
(IT) human capital a critical issue for federal agencies.[Footnote 1] 
To ensure that the federal government meets its human capital needs, 
effective training of IT staff, as called for in the E-Government (E-
Gov) Act of 2002,[Footnote 2] is essential to developing and retaining 
a qualified workforce. At your request, in an earlier report, we 
examined IT training practices of leading private-sector companies. We 
found 22 existing and emerging practices (see attachment 1 in app. I) 
that are used to implement effective IT training. The practices and 
associated case studies that we presented suggest approaches that 
government agencies could consider. In addition, we noted several 
critical issues (e.g., funding constraints and demonstrating return on 
investment) that should be considered in implementing these practices. 
More recently, we issued a final version of a guide for assessing 
strategic training efforts that provides a framework that federal 
agencies can use to ensure that their training investments are targeted 
strategically.[Footnote 3]

To assess IT training in the federal government including its use of 
leading practices, you asked us to determine (1) how federal agencies 
provide IT-related training and to what extent they use the leading 
practices that we identified, (2) the major obstacles in providing 
effective IT training and how agencies address them, (3) the factors 
agencies should consider in preparing for future IT training, and (4) 
the progress the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is making in 
issuing policies and performing evaluations to encourage agencies to 
provide effective IT training. To accomplish these objectives, we 
conducted about 100 structured interviews with executives, training 
managers, and training recipients at 26 agencies and departments. We 
administered a survey to agencies and asked them to provide basic 
statistics and to self-assess the extent to which they were using the 
leading practices we had identified. We followed up with agencies to 
verify or correct data, but we did not independently verify survey 
responses. We researched existing reports, including previous reports 
by us and other agencies; reviewed related training legislation and 
guidance; and conducted interviews with experts on federal IT training. 
To evaluate OPM's progress in implementing provisions of the E-
Government Act, we analyzed OPM's responses to written questions and 
held discussions with OPM training officials.

Earlier this year, we provided briefing slides to your staff on the 
results of our study. These results, updated to include additional 
information requested, are included as an appendix to this letter. The 
purpose of this letter is to officially transmit the information to 
you.

In brief, federal agencies provide IT training in a variety of ways. 
They use multiple delivery methods, acquire training from multiple 
sources, and differ widely in the amount of training they provide and 
the amount they spend. Agencies reported using leading IT training 
practices, but most were not used to a great or very great extent. Of 
the 22 practices we identified, only 5 were in use to a great or very 
great extent in a majority of agencies. Increased use of these 
practices can result in more effective training management. We also 
noted that several federal agencies and other entities have programs or 
initiatives to provide IT training or training resources to employees 
governmentwide.

Agencies reported that the most common obstacles to effective training 
are funding and the time that training takes away from normal work 
hours. To address these obstacles, agencies are looking at ways to 
reduce the time and costs associated with training--for example, by 
increasing the use of e-learning.

Major factors in preparing for future IT training cited by agencies 
included rapidly changing technologies and the loss of skills and 
expertise as the aging workforce retires. Further, federal officials 
emphasized the need for training to be focused on areas such as 
contract management, project management, and information security.

OPM has made limited progress in issuing policies or performing 
evaluations regarding IT training. The E-Gov Act requires agencies to 
have IT training programs that are developed and applied according to 
rigorous standards. To provide oversight, the act requires OPM, in 
coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to issue 
policies to promote the development of performance standards for 
training, and to evaluate agency implementation of the act's IT 
training provisions. Such policies are particularly important in view 
of the lack of extensive agency use of the leading training evaluation 
practices that we described. In May, OPM told us that it plans to 
consider incorporating our leading practices in future guidance. OPM 
has begun drafting guidance and is in the final stages of issuing a 
report on governmentwide IT training, but it has not issued policies or 
evaluated agency implementation of the act. Until policies are 
established that promote the development of performance standards for 
training, and progress is measured against these standards, agency and 
OPM oversight of federal IT training programs will continue to fall 
short of the expectations established in the act with respect to 
standards.

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that, as part of OPM's oversight responsibilities under 
the E-Gov Act, the Director of OPM: 

* issue governmentwide IT training policies, consistent with our 
strategic training guide, that promote development of performance 
standards for training and encourage agencies to use the leading 
practices that we identified; and: 

* set specific milestones for evaluating agency implementation of the 
provisions cited above.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We sent a draft of this report to all 24 agencies[Footnote 4] that 
provided information and to OMB. We received written, oral, or e-mail 
comments from 9 agencies; 11 agencies responded that they did not have 
comments; 5 agencies did not respond.

In a written response, OPM disagreed with our conclusions about its 
role and efforts with respect to federal IT training. OPM stated that 
it has not fallen short of the expectations established by the E-Gov 
Act, noting that the draft report focuses on only one of six statutory 
responsibilities under the act and that we fail to acknowledge that OPM 
is to work with the CIO Council and OMB in addressing federal IT 
personnel needs. Our report focuses on policies because we believe 
these are a foundation for exercising oversight of the other areas of 
responsibility mentioned. We cite OPM's plans to coordinate with OMB 
and the CIO Council on slide 37 (p. 43), and we note that OMB generally 
agreed with the findings and conclusions in our report. We adjusted our 
report to clarify that OPM oversight will fall short of the 
expectations of the E-Gov Act with respect to standards.

With respect to issuing policies, OPM states that the report does not 
fully and fairly inform the reader as to the status of the policies. In 
its response, OPM refers to an unpublished report in final clearance 
that will recommend a governmentwide IT training framework and 
announces that it has developed milestones for issuing policies. We 
mention the unpublished report on slide 37, but it has not been 
provided to us, so we are unable to comment on it. We have modified our 
report to reflect OPM's announcement of milestones. Setting milestones 
is a positive step toward issuing policies.

OPM also took exception to our report's statement that it has made 
little progress in evaluating agency implementation of the E-Gov Act 
provisions. The response states that OPM will incorporate a review of 
agency use of the Governmentwide IT Training Framework and standards in 
its regular review of agencies' mandated training carried out under its 
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework. Since the IT 
Training Framework is to be set forth in the unpublished report 
referred to in the previous paragraph, it is clear that no specific 
evaluation of IT training has yet been done.

OPM also objected to "the use of GAO's 22 standards as a mandatory 
benchmark." We believe this is a misreading of our recommendation. We 
cite 22 leading practices, not standards, and we recommend that OPM 
encourage their use. We believe, and experts agree, that greater use of 
these practices could result in better IT training management.

OPM's comments are reproduced in appendix II.

Eight other agencies submitted comments: 

* In oral comments, representatives of the Office of Management and 
Budget Personnel Policy Branch and Office of E-Government and 
Information Technology generally agreed with the findings and 
conclusions in the report and also provided some technical comments, 
which were addressed as appropriate.

* In written comments, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
generally agreed with our conclusions and provided additional 
information about its training programs. VA's comments are reproduced 
in appendix III.

* The GAO Liaison for the Department of Transportation indicated via e-
mail that Transportation generally concurred with our report.

* The Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General of the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) characterized our report as "generally 
on the mark" but had some concerns about how our leading practices--
particularly those on identifying training needs and evaluating 
training--would apply to professional researchers at the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH). The response states that because our 
practices represent conventional wisdom in training theory, they might 
not apply to creative programs that meet unique training needs, such as 
those at NIH. We agree that medical researchers at NIH are not typical 
of the federal IT workforce. However, the leading practices are general 
in nature, are widely accepted, and allow for flexibility in 
application. HHS's comments are reproduced in appendix IV.

* The GAO Review Liaison of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicated 
via e-mail that the commission supports the effort to encourage greater 
use of leading practices across federal agencies.

* The Deputy Associate CIO for Business and Information Management of 
the Department of Energy, commenting via e-mail, agreed with the need 
for policies. She also recommended that we list all reported obstacles 
to effective training and that agencies' successes in dealing with 
obstacles should be shared across the government. In appendix I, slide 
43, we list methods of addressing the two most important obstacles--
time and funding, which were cited by almost all agencies. To promote 
sharing of successes, we include case studies of effective agency 
training programs in appendix I, attachment 4. Accordingly, we did not 
modify the report.

* The Department of Defense GAO Liaison sent technical comments via e-
mail, which were addressed as appropriate.

* The Department of Justice GAO Liaison sent technical comments via e-
mail, which were addressed as appropriate.

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we 
plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At 
that time, we will send copies of this report to interested 
congressional committees. In addition, copies will be made available to 
others upon request. Copies of this report will also be available at no 
charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your offices should have any questions concerning this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286. I can also be reached by 
e-mail at [Hyperlink, pownerd@gao.gov]. Key contributors to this report 
were Barbara Collier, Megen Davis, Pam Greenleaf, Kush Malhotra, David 
Noone, John Ortiz, Tomás Ramirez Jr., Jamie Pressman, Glenn Spiegel, 
and Angela Watson.

Signed by: 

David A. Powner: 
Director, Information Technology Management Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Information Technology: Federal IT Training: 

[See PDF for images]

[End of slide presentation]

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: 
WASHINGTON, DC 20415-1000:

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR:

JUN 17 2004:

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
United States General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Mihm:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) welcomes the opportunity 
to comment on the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report of May 
28, 2004, Information Technology: Training Can be Enhanced try Greater 
Use of Leading Practices (GAO-04-791). While the report provides useful 
case studies, we must take issue with your conclusions about our role 
and efforts with respect to IT training in the Government.

OPM has not fallen short of the expectations established in the E-
Government Act of 2002. The draft report focuses on only one of six 
statutory responsibilities - issuing policies to promote the 
development of performance standards for training and evaluating their 
implementation. That Act also calls for OPM to analyze. on an ongoing 
basis, personnel needs. to identify training shortfalls, to oversee 
training administration, and to assess training as these activities 
relate to information technology and information resources management. 
Those responsibilities are being carried out by this Agency. In 
addition, the report fails to acknowledge that the E-Government Act of 
2002 calls for OPM to work with the Chief Information Officers Council 
and the Office of Management and Budget to address personnel needs of 
the Government related to information resources management.

With respect to issuing policies, the report does not fully and fairly 
inform the reader as to the status of the policy. The OPM report, 
"Report on Existing Governmentwide Information Technology Training 
Programs," recommending a Governmentwide IT training framework based 
upon the IT Workforce Development Roadmap of the GOLEARN system, is in 
final clearance. With respect to milestones for issuing policy, OPM has 
not failed to set milestones as alleged by the draft report. The 
following are the milestones:

* Approval of OPM's Report on Existing Government-wide Information 
Technology Training Programs (July 2004):

* Meet with CIO Council Workforce and Human Capital for IT Committee to 
define Committee's role in implementing the Governmentwide IT Training 
Framework (August 2004):

* Draft guidance to promote IT training performance standards 
(September 2004):

Finalize guidance to promote IT training performance standards (October 
2004):

* Communicate Governmentwide IT Training Framework and guidance to 
agencies via briefing to CIO Council and dissemination by OPM's human 
capital officers (November 2004):

We also must take exception with the report's comment that OPM has made 
little progress in evaluating agency implementation of the E-Government 
Act provisions. The report fails to acknowledge that an effective 
program of evaluation, particularly in the area of information 
technology, is ongoing through the Human Capital Leadership and Merit 
Systems Accountability division in OPM. OPM's human capital officers, 
responsible for working with the human capital offices of Federal 
agencies, will incorporate review of agency use of the Governmentwide 
IT Training Framework and standards in their regular review of 
agencies' mandated training programs through the Human Capital 
Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF), specifically through 
the Talent Standard and the Leadership and Knowledge Management 
Standard. The Continuous Learning and Improvement critical success 
factor under the HCAAF Knowledge Management Standard addresses 
agencies' training and development programs and strategies. The GAO 
draft report fails to provide any of this information or context.

Finally, we take exception to the use of GAO's 22 standards as a 
mandatory benchmark for success or failure of agency IT training 
programs. Those standards are simply an expansion, and not necessarily 
a comprehensive expansion, of five traditional activities engaged in by 
training administrators - mission alignment, needs assessment, resource 
allocation, design and delivery, and evaluation. Not all of the 22 
standards should be considered mandatory, such as enlisting executive-
level champions, providing just-in-time training, combining different 
teaching methods, and building courses using reusable modules. Those 
are useful strategies and there are alternative approaches to them, but 
they should not be considered mandatory standards.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment:

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Kay Coles James:
Director:

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: 
WASHINGTON:

June 18, 2004:

Mr, David A, Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
U. S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Powner:

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed your draft report, 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Training Can Be Enhanced by Greater Use of 
Leading Practices (GAO-04-791) and agrees with your conclusions as they 
pertain to VA.

The focus of this report is on information technology (IT) training for 
IT professionals. As GAO states, many Federal agencies send their 
staffs to external training. In addition to using external training 
courses, VA provides training to IT professionals through its annual 
Information Security, Information Technology, and the Veterans Health 
Administration's (VHA) e-Health University conferences. Additionally, 
VA has embarked on a rigorous effort to ensure that its project and 
assistant project managers have the necessary project management 
training and certification. Currently, this effort is focused on 
managers of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 300 level projects.

VA also provides access to on-line training for IT staff via VA 
Learning Online (VALO). Contracted by the VA Learning University. VALO 
is a web-based campus, which brings training right to an employee's 
desktop. Whether at home or at work, an employee is able to access the 
courses he or she desires for training and personal development. VALO 
currently offers 2,000 courses, many of which are targeted toward the 
IT technical professional. The target audience for VALO is all VA 
employees, With VALO, employees can get free quality training in one 
central place, at their own pace and convenience.

The report does not detail agency efforts to provide training for IT 
end-users. VA provides significant training to end-users on how to use 
the various IT applications key to their line of business. For example, 
training to clinical staffs on how to use Veterans Health Information 
Technology Architecture (VistA) applications is provided though CD-Rom, 
web content, conference calls, train-the-trainer, and an in-depth 
annual hands-on conference, VHA e-Health University.

IT training is an important goal of the Department. This critical 
training cuts across all VA elements to reach employees and assist them 
in performing their duties.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Anthony J. Principi: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:	
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:

JUN 18 2004:

Mr. David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Powner:

Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled, 
"Information Technology: Training Can Be Enhanced By Greater Use of 
Leading Practices" (GAO-04-791). The comments represent the tentative 
position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation when the 
final version of this report is received.

The Department provided several technical comments directly to your 
staff.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Dara Corrigan:

Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General:

Enclosure:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office 
reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these 
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.

Comments of the Department of Health and Human Services on the General 
Accounting Office's Draft Report "Information Technology, Training Can 
Be Enhanced by Greater Use of Leading Practices" (GAO-04-791):

While the Draft Report GAO-04-791, "Information Technology, Training 
Can Be Enhanced by Greater Use of Leading Practices" is found to be 
generally on the mark, we have concerns with several points contained 
in the draft report and offer the following comments.

It is difficult to assess the extent of the report's findings relative 
to the situation at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
as there was no specific information regarding HHS included in the 
report.

We had provided extensive information to GAO about the National 
Institutes of Health's (NIH) IT training program; however, none of this 
information was referenced in the report. Therefore, we would like to 
restate that NIH offers a large and varied selection of IT training 
courses tailored to the needs of its research staff, far beyond the 
routine commercially available products. In 2003, the NIH's Center for 
Information Technology alone offered over 300 different computer 
courses with more than 10,000 attendees. We believe inclusion of the 
NIH program, as an illustrative example of a highly successful Federal 
IT training program would enhance the report's findings.

In a January 2003 report from data gathered in 2001-2002 on IT 
technology training practices of 12 leading private-sector companies, 
GAO had identified 22 leading IT training practices. The practices 
chosen reflect conventional wisdom in training theory such as "enlist 
executive-level champions" and "document competencies/skills required 
for each job description." In this report, IT training at Federal 
agencies was judged by how closely those practices were being followed 
agency wide. Because GAO used only conventional traits as their 
criteria, creative programs that effectively meet unique training 
needs, such as those at NIH, were overlooked in the draft report. 
Again, we would recommend inclusion of creative programs that meet 
unique mission needs, such as research, that are not met through 
routine IT training.

The report criticized that Federal "agency officials frequently 
reported that the identification of training needs was employee 
driven." We note this criticism does not take into account that some 
training needs are appropriately identified at the individual or 
supervisor level; for example, a researcher or immediate lab chief 
would best know whether a staff member would benefit from such 
technical courses as "MATLAB for Image Processing" or "Evaluation 
Methods in Biomedical Informatics."

When discussing collection of performance data, the report references 
criteria levels similar to those used in the Kirkpatrick model of 
training evaluation. It assumes that Level One, "participant 
reaction,""is less valid than higher levels such as "changes in 
students' work behavior," "achieving organizational goals," and "return 
on investment (ROI)." However, training researchers have come to 
realize that participant reaction is the most valid measure of the 
value of a specific training experience. This is particularly true for 
highly educated professionals who have self-directed their educational 
paths since undergraduate days. ROI and alignment with Enterprise 
Architecture can be measured and established for broad areas of IT 
training.

Because of its study design, the report does not provide best practices 
to meet IT training needs of research professionals and IT 
practitioners. Thus, implementing the recommendation that OPM should 
"set milestones for issuing government-wide IT training policies ... to 
use the leading practices that we identified," would ignore the unique 
training needs of the research environment and adversely impact 
programs already in place to meet those needs. 

[End of section]

(310462): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] We have identified strategic human capital management as a high-
risk area. See U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: 
Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2003).

[2] Pub. L. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Guide for 
Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal 
Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004). 

[4] Although we counted Department of Defense components separately in 
our data, Defense handled agency comments centrally as a single 
response.

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 



Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: