GovernmentExecutive.com

No agency managers in their right mind would say they don't want to provide training for staff. After all, training ranks high as a driver of employee satisfaction, says John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, a Washington think tank.

But in the real world, the spirit is willing, but the dollars are short. When Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, was researching whether to support training funds as a line-item in agency budgets in 2002, he surveyed 12 agencies and discovered that from fiscal 1997 through 2000, respondents spent an average of 1.99 percent of payroll on training.

Meanwhile, private companies recognized for training excellence during that same time frame spent 3.6 percent. When Voinovich tried to update the information, 11 of the agencies said they didn't know what they spent on training and one wouldn't share its data.

Training dollars might be tight, but rules on how to spend them are generous. The Office of Personnel Management's training policy handbook says agencies are welcome to spend funds on certification and accreditation -- including tuition fees, lodging and transportation. OPM even experimented with individual learning accounts at the start of the millennium and gave the program its stamp of approval.

The program allows agencies to divide training dollars into accounts employees can access and spend at their own discretion. But the accounts aren't mandatory, and OPM doesn't appropriate an extra dime to fund them. So what's a poor agency to do?

Marc Drizin, director of workforce engagement at Performance Assessment Network, a workforce research firm in Carmel, Ind., looks for creative solutions. "I agree there is a cost to training and that it's not always easy to draw a direct link between training and some external benefit," he says.

His data from 2004, however, shows that when you provide training and development, employees stay longer, work harder and recommend your organization as a good place to work.

Palguta suggests that managers ask employees to pony up some of the cash. The talk about moving from the General Schedule to performance paybands would mean that some agencies will base an employee's salary in part on professional development, he points out. His solution puts more responsibility on the employee for his career.

Reginald Wells, chief human capital officer and deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration, says he's almost embarrassed to admit how few dollars SSA spends on training. It's probably less than 1 percent of the budget, he estimates.

Yet he considers employee development to be one of his best motivational weapons. His secret to bridging the dichotomy? Distance learning. SSA was one of the first agencies to adopt OPM's e-learning initiative, which includes the www.usalearning.gov Web site, where employees have access to tutors and course work.

E-learning might be one of the hottest tickets in the federal government. All e-learning can be customized, says Cathy Williams, a senior account executive with Ninth House, a leadership development company in San Francisco. And training companies are moving away from static page-turner presentations to Hollywood-quality productions featuring best-selling business experts and leadership gurus.

In a 2003 test of Ninth House's situational leadership course, the Justice Department saved $2,500 per person over the cost of traditional classroom training. And each employee spent six hours learning the materials compared with 40 hours of instruction the old-fashioned way.

Says Williams, "It's a very exciting time to work with the federal government because [agencies] don't have to sacrifice anything to get what they want. There are solutions out there to scale to the organization and provide affordable, quality training."

COMMENTS

• We need to get something straight. College courses are education -- not training. A training budget should never be spent on education. Employees should provide their own education and education never should be provided for by the employer. If employees are not educated they should never be hired or considered for the job! Therefore, the person in the job should never have the government pay for "college courses." If the college courses are training then there is something seriously wrong with the college! Most colleges now are attempting to maximize their revenues by offering online courses. Online courses are neither training or education. Online courses are a way for the students to avoid the commitment of college and to check off a box on government job applications that they have been educated. Also, training budgets should be spent on training and not entertainment. Many of the expensive courses on the 7 steps or the way to manage time are nothing but entertainment and should be avoided by government manager. This is a hard area to evaluate but I know the online courses we get as training are almost worthless and take a lot of time from productive work. Taxpayer Posted August 14, 2006 6:44 AM
• Perhaps the worst use of training funds I saw was at a former employer of mine. The big boss had several employees who requested tuition assistance for work-related college courses. These courses would have cost him less than $200 each. However, instead, he chose to send two employees to hear Steven Covey (the 7 Habits guy) speak in person for a few hours, and the cost was $300 per person. The rest of that year's budget was spent on a new table and chairs for the conference room in the education offices, which got used about once per month. I took student loans to complete my degree. No, I don't think it’s the government's job to pay for my education, but sending two IT employees from North Carolina to a course in Palm Springs then refusing to send someone to a retirement class because "the training budget is busted," is a morale killer. GovExec.com reader Posted August 4, 2006 8:08 AM
• Training has always been a sore point of contention as long as I've been in service. There's critical training desperately needed, not only for my present position, but to remain qualified for my collateral duties. The problem is it always comes down to funding. I don't see the proverbial money pot being the issue; it's the priorities set by management. GovExec.com reader Posted August 3, 2006 4:48 AM