Information on Employee Training Is Not Adequate to
Determine Training Cost or Effectiveness
September 2003
Reference
Number: 2003-10-212
This report has cleared the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process and
information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted
from this document.
September
29, 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR
COMMISSIONER EVERSON
FROM: Gordon C. Milbourn III /s/ Gordon C.
Milbourn III
Assistant Inspector
General for Audit (Small Business and
Corporate Programs)
SUBJECT: Final Audit Report - Information on Employee Training Is Not
Adequate to Determine Training Cost or Effectiveness (Audit # 200210037)
This
report presents the results of our review of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 training
information provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the IRS
Oversight Board’s assessment. The overall objective of this audit was to evaluate for accuracy and
completeness the FY 2002 training information.
The IRS Oversight Board requested that the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration make this evaluation.
In
summary, the training data provided to the IRS Oversight Board by the IRS were
not adequate for the Board to perform an assessment or to develop a baseline of
training in the IRS. The data did not
provide basic information to show how training funds and resources were used or
any measure of their effectiveness.
There were problems with the usefulness and reliability of the training
records entered into the Administrative
Corporate Education System (ACES). The
costs of training courses and the allocation of training resources cannot be
determined from the information recorded in either the ACES or the IRS
financial system. While the IRS plans
to implement a new Learning Management System (LMS) with enhanced capabilities,
the plans are not adequate to demonstrate that the limitations of the data in
the ACES and the IRS financial system will be corrected by the implementation
of the LMS.
We recommended
that the Commissioner direct all IRS staff to use the ACES. We also recommended that the Chief Human
Capital Officer ensure that the data in ACES are periodically reviewed and the
data limitations of ACES be addressed in the new LMS, and work with the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) to develop a system to allocate training costs down to
the individual course and student level.
Management’s
Response: The Chief Human Capital Officer generally
agreed with our conclusion and recommendations. The Chief Human Capital Officer will propose a policy to require
that all business units use the LMS and believes that the LMS will address the
validity and course number issues associated with the ACES. The Chief Human Capital Officer will work
with the CFO (using the new Integrated Financial System) to provide reliable
cost information and produce needed summary data. Although the Chief Human Capital Officer has proposed corrective
actions, she stated that the workload involved in developing the new LMS and
retiring the ACES requires her to defer corrective actions until the LMS is
implemented in FY 2004, causing some corrective actions to not be in place
until July 2005. We believe that to
ensure the accuracy and completeness of the LMS, corrective actions need to be
completed before the LMS is made available to all employees in August
2004. Management’s complete response to
the draft report is included as Appendix VI.
Copies of this
report are also being sent to the IRS managers who are affected by the report
recommendations. Please contact me at
(202) 622-6510 if you have questions, or your staff may call Daniel R. Devlin,
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt
Organizations Programs), at (202) 622-8500.
Training Data Were Not Adequate or Reliable to Perform an Assessment or Establish Baselines
The Costs of Training Courses Cannot Be Determined From the Information Recorded
The Planned New Learning Management System May Not Improve the Reliability of Training Information
Appendix I – Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Appendix II – Major Contributors to This Report
Appendix III – Report Distribution List
Appendix V – Training Summary Information for Selected Business Units
Appendix VI – Management’s Response to the Draft Report
In January 2002, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) Oversight Board approved a plan to provide oversight of training
throughout the IRS. As one of the
initial steps in this process, the Board planned an assessment of the status of
training in the IRS to establish a baseline for management and measurement. The information needed for this assessment
included the IRS training structure (training providers and curricula), plans,
budget, and expenses. The Committee
Chairman of the IRS Oversight Board’s Committee on Personnel and Organization,
Steve H. Nickles, requested that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration evaluate for accuracy and completeness the training information
provided by the IRS for the Board’s assessment.
As of October 5, 2002, the IRS had over
119,000 employees. Employees receive
training in classroom settings, through on-the-job training and computer
“e-learning,” and from outside vendors.
For Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, approximately 92,000 IRS employees received
some type of training; 7.7 million hours of employee training were recorded in
the IRS training database, the Administrative Corporate Education System
(ACES). The IRS FY 2002 training budget
was $111 million.
The IRS has long expressed concerns with its abilities to (1) keep accurate and complete information on training (including the cost) needed to determine effectiveness, and (2) use its training budget in the most cost-effective manner. An IRS document entitled A Compendium for Corporate Education published in 1993 noted that:
At
the present time, the Service has no accurate system in place to account for
the true costs of training or to measure the efficiency or effectiveness of
training delivery. The processes that
have been established, such as ARTS [Automated Regional Training System], are
inadequate, as only limited and often outdated information is available. Although over $50 million (known costs) have
been spent annually on training during the past few years, it cannot be
determined whether these expenditures were cost effective.
The IRS currently uses the ACES, which is the first IRS-wide training management information system. It evolved from the need to collect information and report on training for the entire IRS. In the early 1990s, the IRS was aligned into seven regions in addition to its National Office. The regions each recorded and reported training separately for the staff in the region. At that time, one region developed and was using a database known as the ARTS. The ARTS was implemented nationally and became known as the ACES. This change to a national system occurred in part to address several of the recommendations contained in a 1991 study, including the following:
· Develop guidelines for determining the benefits of training in quantifiable terms.
· Require a cost/benefit analysis before scheduling training activities.
· Revise the training planning process to improve linkages with the strategic planning process.
· Allocate sufficient training funds to fully support a quality training program.
Most of the information on training the IRS provided to the IRS Oversight Board came from the ACES. However, certain information that could not be obtained from the ACES came from other records and systems as noted in this report.
This review was conducted from August 2002 through June 2003 and covered training records and costs associated with FY 2002. Site visits were made to IRS staff in the Headquarters Offices of the Chief Counsel and Strategic Human Resources in Washington, D.C., the Wage and Investment (W&I) Division and Appeals Division staffs in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Small Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division staff in Cincinnati, Ohio. The audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in Appendix II.
The training data the IRS provided to the IRS Oversight Board were not adequate for it to perform an assessment or to develop a baseline of training in the IRS. The Office of Strategic Human Resources staff first requested training data from the IRS business units in June 2002 and provided these data to the Board in November 2002. The data did not provide basic information to show how training funds and resources were used or any measure of their effectiveness. The data did not include:
· The number and cost of IRS staff involved in training activities.
· IRS training contracts with the expected benefits, costs, and allocation of those costs for the contracts.
· A consistent explanation of the associated costs and method of training or time periods needed to complete the core curricula for the major job series.
· The number, type, cost, and allocation of other types of training such as:
§ Continuing Professional Education (CPE).
§ Updates based on changes in the organization, processes, or law.
§ Self-development.
Most of the course and student data were
provided from the ACES.
The ACES has limitations
The ACES can be used to schedule
training, document the training that has been provided, and assist in budget
tracking and projection. However, the
IRS business units do not consistently use the ACES to assist in budget
tracking and projection, the Office of Chief Counsel generally does not use the
ACES, and there are errors and omissions in the ACES.
Using the ACES for budget purposes is very
labor intensive. Estimates are
entered first; then when budgets are adjusted during the year, manual
adjustments must be made. This results
in the need for duplicate input because budget tracking is performed primarily
through the Automated Financial System
(AFS). As such, only one of the four
divisions we reviewed used the ACES for limited budget purposes.
The Office of Chief Counsel maintains its own training database for its 2,400 employees (about 2 percent of the total IRS work force and training budget). The Office of Chief Counsel system indicates that Chief Counsel employees received 30,366 hours of instruction in FY 2002. However, the Office of Chief Counsel system does not record any outservice or self-study training. In FY 2002, the Office of Chief Counsel distributed approximately $300,000 for outservice training to its field offices. Additionally, if an Office of Chief Counsel employee takes a course approved for other IRS employees, it is generally recorded in the ACES database. In FY 2002, there were 408 training records (representing 6,210 training hours) in the ACES for Office of Chief Counsel employees. The training hours were sometimes also recorded in the Office of Chief Counsel system.
Some
course numbers do not have adequate descriptions and are used to record many
different courses
Only 2,606 (55 percent) of the 4,713 courses listed in the ACES Course Catalog were actually taught during FY 2002 (through September 18, 2002). However, the ACES shows many more courses as having been taught because course titles and numbers are not used consistently in the system. There were 11,428 different courses recorded in the ACES. Some of the course numbers in the ACES Course Catalog have titles and descriptions that are very general, and they were used to record many different courses listed in the ACES, including some courses that do not appear to fit the general descriptions. Some of the course numbers used in the system are not listed in the ACES Course Catalog at all. Table 1 provides examples of course numbers that were used for a variety of different courses.
Table 1: Examples of General Course Numbers That Were
Used for Many Different Courses
|
Course Number |
Course Catalog
Definition |
Number of Different
Courses Using the Course Number |
|---|---|---|
|
3227 |
624 |
|
|
Outservice
Training |
561 |
|
|
5700 |
SB/SE Local
Training |
627 |
|
9899 |
719 |
Source: The ACES as of September 18, 2002.
When one course number is used for many courses, it defeats the purpose of using the number to provide useful data on course content and attendance. It makes it difficult to assess what skills or knowledge the training was intended to enhance. In many instances, there were differences in the course titles recorded for the same course, which further increased the difficulty in obtaining useful data from the ACES.
There is
not adequate guidance to ensure that course numbers and course titles are
assigned and used in a manner that will allow an assessment of the types of
training provided. The IRS-wide
Program Managers in the Office of Strategic Human Resources and in each
business unit are responsible for reviewing the ACES Course Catalog at least
once each year to ensure its accuracy; however, there is no indication that
these reviews have addressed the problem with the use of general course
numbers.
Some training was either not recorded accurately or not recorded at all in the ACES
To determine the
accuracy of the information in the ACES, we conducted two employee
surveys. In our first survey (of
employees who received training), we selected a random sample of 291 FY 2002
employee training records from a universe of 309,433 training records recorded
in the ACES as of September 18, 2002.
Of the employees surveyed, 219 (75 percent) responded; 11 (5 percent) of
these stated that there were errors in their training records. The types of errors reported were:
·
The student did
not attend the training.
·
The number of
training hours was not correct.
·
The course
number on the record was not correct.
In our second
survey, we selected a random sample of 250 employees from the 31,541 employees
for whom there were no training records in the ACES for FY 2002, as of
September 18, 2002. Of the employees
surveyed, 125 (50 percent) responded; 14 (11 percent) of these employees
reported that they did receive training in FY 2002.
Overall, these
errors occurred because the employees responsible for the recording and input
of the training information did not follow IRS procedures. In certain instances, the information was
just not transcribed correctly from the forms.
We also noted other problems with ACES data:
· Internet e-learning courses (provided by Skillsoft) were not automatically recorded on the ACES. This occurred because a process was not in place to download this information to the ACES. During FY 2002, IRS employees completed 3,469 Skillsoft courses.
· Training hours associated with 1 course were overstated by 62,792 hours. The 47 employees attending this course had a total of 78,960 hours recorded when they actually received only 16,168 hours. The ACES does not have validity checks to prevent the input of erroneous data.
· Most (86 percent) of the training records were not input into the ACES within 12 calendar days of the training end date, as required. Moreover, 32 percent were not input within 30 days. Not having timely input makes it difficult for the IRS to use the ACES to determine which employees have been trained or to plan for future training. IRS management informed us that 1 of the reasons why training records were not input within the required 12 days is that the requirement is no longer a performance measure; therefore, it is not given much attention.
These problems all reduce the reliability of the data needed to perform an adequate assessment of IRS training.
Overall, the amount of
money budgeted for training each year for FYs 1994 through 2002 has increased
at an average annual rate approximately 4 percent greater than the yearly
increases in the overall IRS budget.
Table 2: IRS
Training As a Percentage of the Total IRS Budget
|
Fiscal Year |
Total IRS Budget |
Training Budget |
Percentage of
Budget Allocated to Training |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1994 |
$7,352 |
$64 |
0.87% |
|
1995 |
$7,483 |
$63 |
0.84% |
|
1996 |
$7,348 |
$31 |
0.42% |
|
1997 |
$7,205 |
$57 |
0.79% |
|
1998 |
$7,805 |
$82 |
1.05% |
|
1999 |
$8,417 |
$89 |
1.06% |
|
2000 |
$8,216 |
$106 |
1.29% |
|
2001 |
$8,841 |
$114 |
1.29% |
|
2002 |
$9,422 |
$111 |
1.18% |
Source: IRS statistics and the
AFS.
The budgeted amounts do not include the salaries for the IRS training staff in the National Headquarters and in the various IRS business units and functions. Nor do they include overhead costs such as in-house instructors and training facilities.
The ACES has the capacity to record some actual training costs, but generally the business units recorded only estimated travel costs (employees provide these estimates before or during training) and some other estimated costs. The IRS uses the AFS to record all operational expenses including training; however, the AFS cannot provide detailed information down to the course or student level. Moreover, there are a number of other costs that are not tracked in enough detail on the AFS to be traceable to the courses provided. These costs include the following:
· Fees paid to private contractors/instructors.
· Course books/materials.
· Equipment.
· Classroom or hotel rentals.
· Course development.
The AFS tracks expenses down to subcategories such as tuition or travel, which can be identified by the business unit that incurs the costs, but it cannot track costs to the courses or employees/students. Additionally, the Office of Strategic Human Resources staff is responsible for providing and tracking general training that can be taken by employees in any business unit (such as general manager or leadership training). The Office of Strategic Human Resources does not allocate any of its training costs to the business units or to the courses.
In addition, the IRS
uses a number of contracts in its training efforts. These contracts include everything from analysis and course
development, which are often multiyear contracts (such as a $56 million
contract awarded to Science Application International Corporation and a $41
million contract to Computer Sciences Corporation), to renting hotel conference
rooms for training events. In FY 2002,
the IRS spent about $31 million (about 28 percent of the total training budget)
on these contracts. Again, without
detailed information in the AFS, the contract costs cannot be traced to the
specific courses and employees/students.
Training allocation by business unit
Part of the cost of training can be assigned to each IRS business unit because of the information identified on the AFS. However, these amounts do not reflect the allocation of costs related to the salaries of IRS training staff, overhead, IRS-wide training contracts, and certain training paid for by the Office of Strategic Human Resources. For example, the W&I and SB/SE Divisions account for about 77 percent (5.9 million) of the total number of training hours (7.7 million) recorded in FY 2002; however, on the AFS, only 36 percent ($40 million of $111 million) of the training budget can be traced to these business units.
The IRS Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98) directed the IRS to reorganize and
modernize. As part of the
reorganization, the IRS developed a new mission statement emphasizing its
responsibility to provide top-quality service.
To fulfill this mission, the IRS must continually train its workforce to
develop new and refined knowledge and skills.
The IRS has decided that
employees require more effective and efficient learning support, including
skill and competency assessment and management, online course delivery and
scheduling, evaluation, and comprehensive administrative management. To help accomplish this, in May 2001, the Office of Strategic Human Resources developed
the requirements for a new Learning Management System (LMS). In October 2002, the IRS purchased a new LMS and planned
to release the initial phase in August 2003.
When fully implemented, the LMS is expected to provide the following:
·
Learning Delivery.
·
Instructor-led Course Tools and Resources.
·
Content
Management.
· Performance Management.
· Collaborative Learning.
· Competency Management.
The implementation of this system is expected to occur in three phases:
First phase (Release 1) - will focus primarily on administration and online learning delivery, including the management of online registration, online approvals, automatic notifications, and basic reporting. During this phase, the LMS will serve 40,000 users.
Second phase (Release 2) - will extend Release 1 capabilities to all users and add delivery of online content through the LMS, resource management, competency management, and expanded reporting. Release 2 enhancements also include online learning assessment and evaluation, individual career planning, and integration with the IRS financial system. By June 2004, these capabilities should be available and all ACES data should be converted to the LMS.
Third phase (Release 3) - will integrate the LMS with HR Connect (a human resource information system) and other IRS systems.
IRS officials stated that some of the Release 2 capabilities might be delayed due to funding constraints. As of May 2003, the IRS needed about $2.7 million to complete Release 2.
Despite the improvements planned for the LMS, it is not expected to capture training costs for each course and student, which is needed to be able to identify how training funds are spent, and there is no indication that the IRS’ new accounting system (the Integrated Financial System (IFS), scheduled to be implemented in FY 2004) will allocate costs or capture the information at the course or student level.
Without a process to ensure data are properly recorded, the IRS may continue to have a problem with the reliability of its training information. This will be a special problem because of the need to convert the training data in the ACES to the LMS.
Because many different courses are assigned the same general course numbers in the ACES and course titles are not used consistently, it will not be possible for the IRS to systemically convert all of the data from the ACES to the LMS. In addition, a better course numbering scheme is needed to ensure that the LMS can be used to identify the types of training provided and the skills addressed.
1.
The Commissioner should require all business units to use
the IRS training management information systems (the ACES and its successor the
LMS) as their official system of records.
Management’s Response: The Chief Human
Capital Officer (formerly titled Director, Strategic Human Resources) will recommend a policy requiring all business units to use
the LMS.
Office of Audit Comment: The Chief Human Capital Officer does not plan to present the policy recommendation until December 2004, which is 4 months after the LMS is to be made available to IRS staff. This policy should be decided upon before the LMS is available to IRS staff.
2.
The
Chief Human Capital Officer should ensure the new LMS has the appropriate
validity checks to ensure data on training courses, costs, and CPE hours are
correct, to avoid input errors.
Management’s Response: The LMS is expected to be automated and, therefore, little manual input will be needed. Reports will be designed to assist in ensuring the accuracy of the data that are entered.
Office of Audit Comment: Management’s response does not address systemic validity checks for the data that will be entered into the system. In addition, the reports to assist in verifying the accuracy of the data should be made available in August 2004, when the system is accessible to all IRS employees, rather than in March 2005 as proposed in management’s response.
3.
The Chief Human Capital Officer
should ensure that a better course numbering scheme is developed in the LMS to
be used to identify the types of training provided and the skills
addressed. The new scheme should limit
or eliminate the use of general course numbers. Prior course numbers should also be correlated with the new
course numbers that will be used for the LMS.
Management’s Response: The LMS course numbering scheme will eliminate the use of general course numbers, and the existing ACES course-numbering pattern will not be part of the LMS.
Office of Audit Comment: Management’s response indicates this recommendation will be
implemented by October 1, 2004; however, we believe it should be completed by
August 2004 when the LMS is scheduled to be available to all IRS employees.
4.
The Chief Human Capital Officer should ensure that periodic reviews of ACES (and when
implemented LMS) data are conducted to verify ACES data and make any needed
corrections.
Management’s Response: The ACES data will be reviewed some time in FY 2004 to validate the data moved to the LMS, and periodic reviews of the LMS data will be established once the LMS is fully operational.
Office of Audit Comment: It is not clear from management’s response whether the ACES data will be validated before or after it is moved to the LMS. We believe it should be validated before it is moved to the LMS.
5.
The
Chief Human Capital Officer and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) should
develop a method of properly allocating training costs to courses and
employees/students.
Management’s Response: The LMS staff will work with the CFO’s staff to ensure the LMS will provide the needed financial data without duplicating the IFS.
6.
The Chief Human Capital Officer and
CFO should ensure the IRS training and financial systems (the LMS and IFS) can
provide information (in report form) needed for the IRS to assess its own
training efforts. Summary data such as
the number of students trained, number of courses taught, student attendance by
course and curricula, and total cost of the training courses and curricula
(including properly allocated costs of the Learning and Education group staffs
and appropriate overhead) should constitute the minimum requirements of the
report. The systems should also provide
the ability to assess, for each job series, employees who have met the minimum
core curriculum requirements and those who have not.
Management’s Response: With Release 2, the LMS will report summary training data while the IFS is expected to provide needed cost information. The Chief Human Capital Officer and CFO will design standard reports integrating data from each system. After the IFS is implemented, quarterly expense reports will be issued. Additionally, the Chief Human Capital Officer and CFO will develop a methodology to allocate overhead costs.
Appendix I
Detailed Objective, Scope,
and Methodology
The overall objective of this audit was to evaluate for accuracy and completeness the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 training information provided by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the IRS Oversight Board’s assessment. We conducted this audit at the request of the Oversight Board. To accomplish this objective, we completed the following steps:
I. Reviewed the
data in the IRS training database, the Administrative
Corporate Education System (ACES), to determine if the source of training data
provided to the IRS Oversight Board is complete and accurate.
A. Determined whether the ACES Course Catalog is updated yearly and includes only courses that are currently being taught.
B. Obtained a computer extract of ACES data for FY 2002 (through September 18, 2002). We performed an overall analysis of the ACES data to determine whether:
1. Training information was input timely.
2. Course numbers and titles were unique and used consistently (as listed in the FY 2002 ACES Course Catalog).
3. Training hours entered appeared to be reasonable.
C. Selected two random samples of ACES data to evaluate their accuracy. The first sample of 291 training records was taken from a universe of 309,433 training records recorded in the ACES for FY 2002 (through September 18, 2002). The second sample of 250 individual IRS employees was drawn from a universe of 31,541 employees (through September 18, 2002) for whom no training was recorded in the ACES database. For both samples, a survey was sent via e-mail to IRS employees and/or their supervisors. The sizes of the samples were based on a 95 percent confidence level, a precision level of ± 5 percent, and an expected error rate of no more than 20 percent.
II. Reviewed the
financial data related to training in the ACES and the IRS Automated Financial
System to determine if the source of
financial data related to training provided to the IRS Oversight Board is
complete and accurate.
A. Obtained information on the IRS training budget for FYs 1994 through 2002.
B. Obtained information to determine if the following costs were properly allocated to the IRS business units and the training courses provided:
1. IRS training contracts.
2. IRS instructor salaries/fees paid to private contractors/instructors.
3. Course books/materials.
4. Equipment.
5. Space (classroom or auditorium rentals).
6. Course development and scheduling (salaries of other support staff).
III. Reviewed information related to the IRS’ planned new Learning Management System to determine whether the enhancements planned for the new system will increase the reliability and usefulness of training information and identification and allocation of training costs.
Appendix II
Major Contributors to This Report
Daniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit
(Headquarters Operations and Exempt Organizations Programs)
Michael E. McKenney, Director
Kevin P. Riley, Audit Manager
Charles O. Ekunwe, Senior Auditor
Joan R. Floyd, Senior Auditor
Michael S. Laird, Senior Auditor
Rosemarie M. Maribello, Senior Auditor
Stephen E. Holmes, Auditor
William
E. Thompson, Auditor
Appendix III
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE
Chief, Appeals AP
Chief Counsel CC
Chief Financial Officer OS:CFO
Commissioner, Small
Business/Self-Employed Division SE:S
Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W
Chief Human Capital Officer OS:HC
National Taxpayer Advocate TA
Director, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA
Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O
Office of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M
Audit Liaisons:
Chief Financial Officer OS:CFO
Chief Human Capital Officer OS:HC
Appendix IV
This appendix presents detailed information on the measurable impact that our recommended corrective actions will have on tax administration. This benefit will be incorporated into our Semiannual Report to the Congress.
Type and Value of Outcome Measure:
Reliability of Information – Potential. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 training budget was $111 million. The training data provided to the IRS Oversight Board by the IRS were not adequate for the Board to perform an assessment or to develop a baseline of training in the IRS. The data did not provide basic information to show how training funds and resources were used or any measure of their effectiveness (see page 3).
Methodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:
The training budget
amount is based on information in the IRS Automated Financial System.
Appendix V
Training Summary
Information for Selected Business Units
Wage and Investment Division
The Wage and Investment (W&I) Division staffing ranged from 40,757 to 46,247. There are 69 different job series in the business unit; 8 of them account for 90 percent of the entire W&I Division work force. To support training, there are 138 W&I Division employees in the Learning and Education (L&E) group. The ratio of W&I Division employees to L&E group employees is approximately 311 to 1.
Summary Information
|
Courses offered by
course number |
1,345 |
|---|---|
|
Employee training hours
provided |
3,096,269 |
|
Employees trained |
34,513 |
Method of Providing Training
|
|
Classroom
|
On-the-Job Training (OJT)
|
Outservice
|
Self-study |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Training Records |
115,778 |
185 |
865 |
8,192 |
125,020 |
Allocated Training Costs
|
Fiscal
Year (FY) 2002 |
Travel |
Training |
Supplies |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
$8,352,443 |
$2,771,427 |
$121,504 |
$11,244,374 |
|
Percent of
Total |
74% |
25% |
1% |
100% |
Courses With Highest Attendance
|
Attendance Rank |
Course Titles |
Number of |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Shared Topics |
4,339 |
|
2 |
Integrated Submission and Remittance
Processing - Submission Processing Training for New Hires |
4,176 |
|
3 |
Refresher
Training - 2002 |
2,678 |
|
4 |
Customer
Communications (Courtesy and Professionalism) |
2,147 |
|
5 |
National
Agreement Training for Managers |
2,145 |
Small
Business/Self-Employed Division
The Small
Business/Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division
staffing ranged from 43,679 to 45,012. There are 64 different job series in the
business unit; 11 of them account for 92 percent of the entire SB/SE Division
work force. To support training, there
are 194 SB/SE Division employees in the L&E group. The ratio of SB/SE Division employees to
L&E group employees is approximately 256 to 1.
Summary Information
|
Courses offered by
course number |
1,490 |
|---|---|
|
Employee training hours
provided |
2,854,011 |
|
Employees trained |
33,109 |
Method of Providing Training
|
|
Classroom
|
OJT
|
Outservice
|
Self-study |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Training Records |
88,602 |
316 |
950 |
12,292 |
102,160 |
Allocated Training Costs
|
FY
2002 |
Travel |
Training |
Supplies |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
$21,017,688 |
$5,646,014 |
$152,241 |
$26,815,943 |
|
Percent of
Total |
78% |
21% |
Less than 1% |
100% |
Courses With Highest Attendance
|
Attendance Rank |
Course Titles |
Number of |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Report Generation
Software Stand Alone NT Version 2.0 |
4,512 |
|
2 |
Refresher Training –
2002 |
3,751 |
|
3 |
National Agreement Training for Managers |
3,617 |
|
4 |
100% Accountability |
1,397 |
|
5 |
Customer
Communications (Courtesy and Professionalism) |
904 |
Office
of Chief Counsel
The Office of Chief Counsel staffing ranged from 2,436 to 2,448. There are 25 different job series in the business unit; 8 of them account for 94 percent of the entire Office of Chief Counsel work force. To support training, there are 11 Office of Chief Counsel employees in the L&E group. The ratio of Office of Chief Counsel employees to L&E group employees is approximately 221 to 1.
Summary Information
|
Courses offered by
course number |
174 |
|---|---|
|
Employee training hours
provided |
36,576 |
|
Employees trained |
1,512 |
Method of Providing Training
(only recorded for training in the ACES)
|
|
Classroom
|
OJT
|
Outservice
|
Self-study |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Training Records |
272 |
0 |
4 |
132 |
408 |
Allocated Training Costs
|
FY
2002 |
Travel |
Training |
Supplies |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
$766,103 |
$931,326 |
$54,710 |
$1,752,139 |
|
Percent of
Total |
44% |
53% |
3% |
100% |
Courses With Highest Attendance
|
Attendance Rank |
Course Titles |
Number of |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Finance & Management (F&M) Customer Service Training – Video |
400 |
|
2 |
F&M Manager
Training |
400 |
|
3 |
Closing Agreements –
Interactive Video Teleconference |
179 |
|
4 |
Litigation Ethics –
Interactive Video Teleconference |
179 |
|
5 |
Cross-Examining
Witnesses – Interactive Video Teleconference |
162 |
Appeals
Division
Appeals Division staffing ranged from 1,850 to 1,964. There are 21 different job series in the business unit; 8 of them account for 95 percent of the entire Appeals Division work force. To support training, there are 14 Appeals Division employees in the L&E group. The ratio of Appeals Division employees to L&E group employees is approximately 137 to 1.
Summary Information
|
Courses offered by
course number |
206 |
|---|---|
|
Employee training hours
provided |
95,680 |
|
Employees trained |
1,541 |
Method of Providing Training
|
|
Classroom
|
OJT
|
Outservice
|
Self-study |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Training Records |
2,792 |
6 |
184 |
208 |
3,190 |
Allocated Training Costs
|
FY
2002 |
Travel |
Training |
Supplies |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount |
$2,469,038 |
$181,675 |
$10,576 |
$2,661,289 |
|
Percent of
Total |
93% |
7% |
Less than 1% |
100% |
Courses With Highest Attendance
|
Attendance Rank |
Course Titles |
Number of |
|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Appeals/Large and
Mid-Size Business – Continuing Professional Education (CPE) |
276 |
|
2 |
National Agreement
Training for Managers |
191 |
|
3 |
Technical CPE for General Appeals Area 5 |
156 |
|
4 |
Collection Issues Training for Appeals - Phase 1 |
146 |
|
5 |
Technical CPE
for General Appeals Area 4 |
144 |
Appendix VI
Management’s Response to the Draft Report
The response
was removed due to its size. To see the
response, please go to the Adobe PDF version of the report on the TIGTA Public
Web Page.