U.S. Office of Personnel Management Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 III. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A: Interagency Advisory Group Memorandum Regarding Guidance on Appropriate Language Restricting Training.A-1 Appendix B: Agenda Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1 Appendix C: OPM FY 1997 Oversight Reports Included in StudyC-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of a special study of the appropriateness of non-technical training, conducted by the Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness in FY 1997. The study's principal focus was to assess whether agencies are adhering to legal appropriateness criteria in conducting non-technical training. A brief summary of the more significant study findings follows. Agencies reviewed as part of this study were not violating the training appropriateness requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Notice and Public Laws cited in this report, although managers and supervisors were generally unaware of the specific regulatory and legal provisions. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) teams provided agencies specific information and guidance while on site. With one exception, we encountered no instances of clearly inappropriate or offensive training, nor did we learn of any employee being denied the opportunity to opt out of training he or she may have found to be inappropriate or offensive. At one installation, two employees informed us they had attended classroom training they deemed inappropriate; they did not complete the course and did not file a formal objection. These two employees, along with many others, did not realize they could refuse to attend non-technical training without fear of reprisal; many of the sites we visited did not make this explicitly clear. In recent years, Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) has been one of the more sensitive training topics in most agencies. We found that a small proportion of employees were uncomfortable with some aspects of this training, but those employees were offered alternative forms of training or told they would not have to attend. There were no formal written complaints concerning HIV/AIDS training. In many agencies, written evaluations are not consistently requested of participants in training sessions. The lack of a formal feedback mechanism was not viewed as a problem by employees, who indicated they have adequate avenues for voicing complaints. We encouraged agencies to ensure that all employees understand that any constructive feedback is welcome. We also discovered that some agencies have responded to the challenge of providing training in an era of downsizing by setting up resource centers designed to enable employees to gain more control over their careers. These centers typically provided a variety of aids to growth and skill-development, and some even made counselors available to assist in career-planning. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK II. INTRODUCTION Environment In Fiscal Year 1997, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted a special study of the appropriateness of non-technical training. This issue arose because Congress included language restricting training not related to official duties in the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-52). The restrictions covered agencies funded by the Act and the intent was to prohibit expenditure of Federal funds on training that is offensive to Federal employees and unnecessary in the execution of an employee's official duties. This language was made generally applicable to all agencies in FY 1997 by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-208 (hereinafter PL 104-28). Public Laws 104-52 and 104-208 include certain criteria for the appropriateness of non-technical training. These restrictions include: training course participants should not experience high levels of emotional or psychological stress as a result of the training; training courses should not contain methods or content associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems or "new age" belief systems as defined by EEOC Notice N-915.022, issued September 2, 1988; training should not be offensive to, or designed to change, participants' personal value systems or lifestyles outside the workplace; and training course content related to Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) should be limited to describing the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS as they relate to communicability and affect an employee's ability to perform official duties, and workplace rights of HIV-positive employees. OPM initially issued guidance to the agencies subject to the 1996 Appropriations Act in March 1996. Once Public Law 104-208 made the restrictions applicable to all agencies, OPM provided guidance on the appropriations language restricting training through a memorandum to members of the Interagency Group and the Human Resource Development Council, issued November 8, 1996. Appendix A contains a copy of this guidance. In interpreting the law, the guidance included expectations that: employees should be notified in advance of the purpose of the training, about the content to be expected in the training, and how the content will be taught; written end-of-course evaluations should be used to assess participant reaction; agency officials should be aware of the appropriateness criteria in order to carefully review and be sensitive to training content and methods, and also, through review of EEOC Notice N-915.022, know how to handle situations where an employee objects to participating in a training program because its content or techniques conflict with the employee's religious beliefs. This guidance is reflected in the Expected Outcomes used in our study as a framework to assess whether agencies and installations are adhering to the legal appropriateness criteria. Evaluation Plan and Data Sources Fact-finding was conducted by OPM evaluators through on-site reviews at headquarters and field offices of various agencies. These included U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of the Army, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The fact-finding was conducted in these agencies because they were scheduled for review in FY 1997 in OPM's established cycle for agency reviews. The agencies vary greatly in size, mission, field structure and training needs. They represent a broad cross-section of the Federal government's civilian employment. A standardized agenda was covered at each agency site reviewed. Appendix B contains the key agenda questions covered at each site. This study draws on the findings related to this agenda contained in eighty-nine installation and agency reports, listed in Appendix C. A representative sample of managers, supervisors, and employees were interviewed, either individually or in groups at each site, and relevant records and data were reviewed. A total of 876 managers and supervisors were interviewed. Of these interviews, 552 were conducted one-on-one, and 324 supervisors participated in 53 small group interviews. Employees were generally interviewed in small groups; we interviewed 933 employees in 114 group sessions. III. FINDINGS MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES All employees...should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights. Title 5, U.S.C., section 2301(b)(2) Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance. Title 5, U.S.C., section 2301(b)(7) EXPECTED OUTCOMES When an installation complies with Merit System Principles in adhering to legal appropriateness criteria in conducting training for its employees: The Training Officer or Coordinator is knowledgeable of the restrictions imposed by EEOC Notice N-915.022, and managers and supervisors are aware that training objectives and content must be reviewed to ensure appropriateness. Training courses do not contain methods or content associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems or "new age" belief systems as defined by the EEOC notice. Participants are notified in advance of the purpose, content and methodology of specific training sessions, and are afforded the opportunity to decline training they may find offensive. Training course participants do not experience high levels of emotional or psychological stress as a result of the training. Training is not offensive to, or designed to change, participants' personal value systems or lifestyles outside the workplace. Written post-course evaluations, completed by participants for each training course, are monitored for any significant negative feedback, especially comments referring to the training as inappropriate or offensive. Any training course content related to Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is limited to and does not go beyond describing: 1) The medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS as they relate to communicability, and as they affect an employee's ability to perform official duties 2) Workplace rights of HIV-positive employees. Training assists the organization in accomplishing its mission and coping with organizational challenges such as downsizing. REVIEW RESULTS Adherence to Legal Requirement Most management officials were unaware of the appropriateness criteria for non-technical training contained in EEOC Notice N-915.022 and Public Law 104-208. Nevertheless, our reviews did not identify any training programs that contained material related to religious belief or "new age " belief systems. Many managerial and supervisory training programs included a module on organizational values, but we encountered no training courses that were designed to change personal value systems. At only one of the sites reviewed did we find an instance of what could be characterized as inappropriate training. At that installation, two employees told OPM that they had attended a training course in which they believed their religious beliefs were not respected. Specifically, the instructor told them to eliminate their religious symbolism from a drawing the two employees had made as part of a class assignment; later in the course, the instructor played a musical audiotape which the two employees felt was symbolic of a different religion. They objected, but the instructor disagreed that the tape had religious connotations. Although they expected consequences, the two employees withdrew from the course and did not complete it. When apprised of these events, local agency management took steps to communicate key provisions of EEOC Notice N-915.022 and Public Law 104-208 to all employees. Management's actions assured OPM that the employees would not suffer adverse consequences. Except for this instance, there was neither documentation, nor oral report of complaints regarding appropriateness or offensiveness of actual training sessions conducted. Additionally, there were no reports of anyone being denied the opportunity to opt out of training to which they objected. Few training officers and coordinators were aware of EEOC Notice N-915.022. Nevertheless, all monitored training programs and were sensitive to anything they deemed inappropriate. Despite the pervasive lack of familiarity with the relevant guidance, the agencies we reviewed were satisfying the appropriateness criteria in terms of outcomes, through the application of sound management principles, good business practices, and humane personnel procedures in administering their training programs. We found relatively few locations where efforts had been made to give managers an understanding of how to determine whether training was appropriate. OPM teams provided detailed information and guidance for dissemination to local managers and supervisors at any installations visited that had not already been provided such guidance. Forty-two percent of the reports included a corrective action that the installation "provide information, guidance, and/or training on implementation of non-technical training appropriateness as required by EEOC Notice N-915.022 and Public Law 104-208." This was the most common corrective action OPM reports imposed. Other less frequently imposed corrective actions appearing in the reports included: provide a point of contact for supervisors to obtain advice on training appropriateness; ensure that training course evaluations are completed, screened, and considered; notify employees in advance of training course purpose, content, and methodology; and inform employees of their right to decline non-technical training they feel may be offensive or otherwise inappropriate. Adherence to OPM Guidance Due to lack of awareness of the laws, EEOC Notice and OPM guidance, at most locations training proposed for employees was not being screened to ensure that it complied with the law. However, as mentioned above, training officers and coordinators screened for issues they considered inappropriate. Some managers and supervisors routinely reviewed course information when their employees were scheduled for training, but most presumed that someone else was reviewing training content for the presence of offensive or inappropriate issues. Employees typically received advance basic information about the content of training sessions for which they were scheduled and generally believed the information was sufficient to form an opinion as to the appropriateness of the course. Employees received information about training sessions for which they were eligible or were scheduled to attend in widely varying ways. At some installations, employees were given an annual catalog containing course descriptions, target audiences, course objectives, training methodologies used, and a schedule of dates. At other locations, employees received an E-mail message with course title and dates shortly before a session was scheduled, and little else. Whatever the approach taken by the agency, employees felt they could obtain the training information they desired. For internally-developed training courses, lack of familiarity with the specific appropriateness criteria generally precluded application of the screening criteria. We found that much internally-developed training was technical in nature, typically closely work-related and non-use of the screening criteria was not an issue. While the screening criteria was also not applied to locally-developed non-technical training, this was generally constructed with job-relatedness in mind and did not extend into the areas of personal beliefs and value systems. Since few agency staff were aware of the specific appropriateness criteria prior to the arrival of OPM evaluators, few vendor curricula were screened against appropriateness criteria. However, agency training representatives and managers assured us that outside training materials were generally reviewed prior to being used in a class. When this did not happen, it was usually because the vendor's reputation was known and trusted, and a specific review was deemed unnecessary. Regarding the expectation that installations should have a post-training feedback mechanism which will surface inappropriate courses, instructors or vendors, we found that practices ranged from requiring no written feedback, to having employees fill out multiple written evaluations, e.g., for the instructor, training office, human resources office, supervisor. The OPM teams found the process of locating written course evaluations to be a challenge. Many installations do not require them, especially for courses of no more than a day in duration. For other sessions, completed evaluations are handed to the instructor at the conclusion of the training session and are apparently disposed of by the instructor. At the other end of the spectrum, a few installations require that an evaluation be turned in at the end of the course, and a second evaluation be filled out (usually part of the training nomination form) and submitted to the Human Resources office. Some installations also follow up with a phone call to the employee and encourage their employees to discuss recently-completed training with their supervisor. OPM teams requested training evaluation forms at every site where they were maintained and found no written negative feedback on evaluation forms regarding the appropriateness of training. Where written post-course evaluations are collected, they are typically reviewed for significant negative comments, including feedback that the training was inappropriate or offensive in content or presentation. In one location, where the training office felt they were not adequately staffed to review one hundred percent of the evaluations, sessions were randomly selected for review. We encountered no complaints concerning written evaluations or lack thereof; employees felt they had adequate avenues to voice negative feedback. Several installations are in the early stages of implementing training software that includes the capability to have an employee enter evaluative comments directly into the system. The ease-of-use and potential advantages this approach offers may increase the quantity of feedback in agencies that adopt it. HIV/AIDS Training The EEOC notice clearly advises that HIV/AIDS training not go beyond explaining medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS, and describing the workplace rights of HIV-positive employees. At many locations, we were told that when HIV/AIDS training was conducted, several employees expressed discomfort with some aspects of the training. In some cases, certain portions of the HIV/AIDS training program that employees found offensive were modified or dropped; in others, employees were informed that they would not have to attend and were offered an alternative training method, such as a videotape. We did not come across a single instance of a formal written complaint concerning HIV/AIDS training. We received verbal input from some employees who seemed to recall an instance where one or more employees had refused to attend HIV/AIDS training, but they were not aware of any disciplinary action that had been taken. A number of interviewees were aware of co-workers who had experienced mild levels of discomfort while attending HIV/AIDS training, but none would characterize the experience as highly stressful. Employees who anticipated experiencing significant stress from this training had previously declined to attend. Most HIV/AIDS training was conducted in 1993 and 1994; it has been presented only sporadically since then, primarily based on demand. Agencies have also made this topic part of their orientation program for new employees. We reviewed several HIV/AIDS training packages and found that none went beyond covering communicability, impact on an employee's ability to perform official duties, and the workplace rights of HIV-positive employees. HIV/AIDS training programs at the sites we visited tended to focus on preventive measures, and avoided moral or value judgments. No employees complained to us that the training was inappropriate or went too far, and we encountered no written complaints regarding the training. Dealing with Employee Objections A potential problem for many installations is that a significant number of employees indicated they did not know they could refuse to attend a non-technical training course (even a "mandatory" one) they might find offensive, without fear of reprisal. At roughly half the sites visited, management did not explicitly communicate to employees that the option to decline non-technical training was available. Nevertheless, based on what we heard from employees, supervisors and managers, no one was aware of an instance where an employee was forced to attend a non-technical training course he or she did not want to attend. It appears that supervisors and managers have responded to employee requests to be excused by giving verbal approval to be absent, or by offering an alternative to the classroom session, such as a video. When management staff were questioned about how they would deal with an employee who objected to attending training that could be offensive, supervisors and managers alike indicated that they would not force an employee to attend such training. Trends in Non-technical Training The manner in which non-technical training is delivered varied widely. While instructor-led, small-group classroom training was the dominant (and preferred) method, videotapes and satellite broadcasts were not unusual, especially in field offices. The topics most often covered were EEO, Diversity, HIV/AIDS, Sexual Harassment, Violence in the Workplace, and Ethics. Instructors tended to be drawn from agency staff, but outside contractors were often utilized, especially at Headquarters offices. Most training done recently in response to downsizing has been of the technical variety, often taking the form of cross-training or re-training to develop or enhance new skills. Most non-technical training in a downsized environment involves team-building, shared leadership, change management, workforce planning, or quality improvement, all of which are designed to make the workforce more productive and efficient. Further, in this era of tight budgets, we found that expenditures on non-technical training have been severely trimmed. In some cases, training has been limited to that considered "mandatory." In fact, some agencies spend their entire discretionary training budget strictly on technical training. There was consensus that the single biggest contribution non-technical training makes toward mission accomplishment is in fostering teamwork, which is critical in a downsized environment. We also found some successful or innovative approaches, methods or techniques that installations developed and implemented to meet the challenge of providing training in the current downsizing environment. Several installations have set up resource centers designed to enable employees to gain more control over their careers. These centers tend to be unique but typically include some form of self-paced computer-based learning on a variety of skills and topics, educational videos and audio tapes, reference books, tutorials and other self-development materials. They also house career-planning and job-search aids and resources. In some cases, a counselor is available to discuss career planning. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK IV. CONCLUSION Except for the one situation noted in this summary report, we encountered no other instances of inappropriate or offensive training, nor did we learn of any other employees being pressured or coerced to attend any training he or she perceived as possibly inappropriate or offensive. Although very few managers, supervisors and employees interviewed professed knowledge of the specific provisions of Public Laws 104-52 and 104-208, and EEOC Notice 915.022, the agencies reviewed are effectively meeting the underlying intent of the legislation. Namely, they are ensuring that training is appropriate, job-related, and has low potential to offend. While not necessarily a response to legal requirements, agencies are accomplishing these objectives by routinely reviewing training course materials, methodologies, and instructors. At locations where officials were not aware of the provisions of Public Law 104-208, OPM staff provided copies of EEOC Notice N-915.022 and the Interagency Advisory Group guidance on implementing the provisions of Public Law 104-208. Our reports to installations and agencies included recommendations that all managers, supervisors, and employees be provided the information about the restrictions on non-technical training, and to ensure that employees are advised of their options if they feel proposed training is offensive to, or designed to change, their personal value systems. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK APPENDIX A INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROUP United States Office of Personnel Management Washington, DC 20415 November 8, 1996 MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROUP AND THE HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FROM: KIRKE HARPER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Guidance on Appropriation Language Restricting Training Section 624 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997, as contained in section 101(f) of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), contains language restricting training not related to official duties. Similar language appeared last year in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-50) and the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-52). This year, Congress has made the provisions apply to all appropriated funds for training all Federal employees, civilian and military. In March 1996, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidance to agencies subject to these 1996 appropriation acts. To help clarify any questions that you may have about section 624, we are updating and reissuing that guidance. Please assure that each agency official with the authority to authorize and approve funds for training agency employees is made aware of the restrictions in Public Law 104-208. If you or your staff have questions, please contact Judith Lombard at 202-606-2431. Attachment Guidance for Implementing Training Restrictions Contained in Public Law 104-208 Background: Section 624 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriation Act, 1997, as contained in section 101(f) of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), contains language restricting training not related to official duties. Section 624 prohibits expenditures of Federal funds on training that is offensive to Federal employees and unnecessary in the execution of their official duties. It is not intended to prohibit training that is necessary for Federal workers to effectively complete their assigned duties. The following guidance is based on balancing the intent of section 624 with the basic authorities contained in training law, chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code. Guidance Regarding Specific Subsections: Sec. 624. "(a) None of the funds made available in this Act, or any other Act, may be obligated or expended for any employee training when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such employee training -" Section 624 does not amend title 5, U.S.C., chapter 41, Training, or change the legal purpose of training -- to improve individual and organizational performance related to an agency's mission. However, the phrase "this Act, or any other Act" refers to all Acts of Congress which appropriate funds to agencies, both civilian or military agencies, and to the training of all employees, both those subject to the civil service provisions of title 5 of the United States Code and those who are not subject to title 5. "(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of official duties;" Consistent with current law, this subsection reminds agency officials that there should be a relationship between the knowledge, skills, and abilities the training is intended to provide and an employee's lawfully assigned duties. Employees may be assigned to training associated with their current duties or anticipated duties related to the mission of the agency. The legal purpose of training continues to be to improve individual and organizational performance and to assist in achieving the agency's mission and performance goals (5 U.S.C.  4101(4)). 5 CFR 410.203, based on Executive Order 11348, provides basic guidance to agencies for determining training needs of individuals, occupations, programs, and organizations. "(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional response or psychological stress in some participants;" We believe the intent of this subsection is to alert officials to carefully review and be sensitive to training content and training methods. Both should be evaluated in context with the purpose of the training. Training should not induce unnecessary psychological stress in participants. Some training programs might, of necessity, have the potential for inducing psychological stress and yet be performance related and in the Government's interest. An example would be training simulating stress present in the employees' work environment. "(3) does not require prior employee notification of the content and methods to be used in the training and written end of course evaluations;" For all agency-sponsored training, employees should be notified, in advance, of the purpose of the training, about the content to be expected in the training, and how the content will be taught. Written end-of-course evaluations should be used to assess participant reaction to the training, vendor and instructor performance, and the effectiveness of any participatory learning techniques. "(4) contains any methods or content associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems or "new age" belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988;" Agency officials should review Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Notice N-915.022. The Notice is available from EEOC and, in electronic form, in the Training Forum of the OPM Mainstreet (202-606-4800). It provides guidance in handling situations where an employee objects to participating in a training program because its content or the techniques or exercises used conflict with the employee's religious beliefs. In addition, the Notice reminds agency officials of their duty under subsection 701(j) of title VII to accommodate employees' religious needs. We believe it is good practice for agencies to have procedures for handling employees' requests for religious accommodation regarding training. "(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace; or" This subsection reminds agency officials that is inappropriate to use Federally-sponsored training to change employees personal values or to influence their lifestyles outside the workplace. This legislation does not effect training in Government ethics and codes of conduct expected of Federal employees. As noted earlier, the primary purpose for training is to improve performance. Non-technical training is appropriate when it addresses: 1. Interpersonal skills that Federal employees need to provide services to, work with, and manage persons both like and unlike themselves; 2. Behavior Federal employees are expected to exhibit, or may encounter, in the workplace; and/or 3. Workplace health and safety issues, security matters, and other subjects that bear directly on individual or organizational performance. "(6) includes content related to human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the workplace rights of HIV positive employees." In addition to the restriction in section 624, the Ryan White CARE Amendments Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-146, May 20, 1996), prohibits mandatory HIV or AIDS training for Federal employees, except for training necessary to protect the health and safety of the Federal employee and the individuals served by the employee. A Federal employee (including a member of the armed forces) may not be required to attend or participate in an AIDS or HIV training program if the employee refuses to consent. HIV/AIDS training is permitted to make employees aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the workplace rights of HIV positive employees. Mandatory HIV/AIDS training is permissible when it is necessary to protect the health and safety of the employee and the individuals served by the employee. Agency officials are advised to avoid HIV/AIDS training that goes beyond these stated purposes. "(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing directly upon the performance of official duties." This legislation does not prohibit any type of training that is necessary for Federal workers to effectively complete their legally assigned tasks. In addition, it is not intended to affect any training for displaced workers designed to help them find new employment. APPENDIX B AGENDA QUESTIONS 1. How does the installation ensure that its non-technical training complies with legal and public policy requirements governing training appropriateness? 2. Has information been provided to management staff which can assist them in understanding what constitutes training appropriate for organizational performance and mission accomplishment? 3. Does the installation screen training requests to ensure that proposed training is in compliance with the referenced EEOC notice? 4. For any internally developed training courses, have the appropriateness criteria been applied? 5. Does the installation have a post-training feedback mechanism that will surface inappropriate courses, instructors or vendors? 6. How are vendors' curricula systematically screened against appropriateness criteria? 7. How does the organization ensure that the non-technical training program is assisting the agency in accomplishing its mission? 8. What successful or innovative approaches, methods or techniques has the installation developed and implemented to meet the challenge of providing training in an era of downsizing? THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK APPENDIX C OPM FY 1997 OVERSIGHT REPORTS INCLUDED IN STUDY AGRICULTURE U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC Agricultural Marketing Service Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC Agricultural Marketing Service Headquarters, Washington DC Livestock and Seed Division, Greeley, CO Poultry Division, Des Moines, IA Dairy Division, Glen Ellyn, IL Cotton Division, Memphis, TN Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Human Resources Operations, Minneapolis, MN Animal Damage Control, Lakewood, CO National Wildlife Research Center, Animal Damage Control, Ft. Collins, CO Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Ft Collins, CO National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, IA Field Servicing Office - M&B, Minneapolis, MN Farm Service Agency Farm Service Agency, Washington, DC Farm Service Agency, KCMO/KCCO, Kansas City, MO Farm Service Agency, Columbus, OH Headquarters, Washington, DC Food Safety & Inspection Service Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC Forest Service Region 5, San Francisco, CA Sierra National Forest, Clovis, CA Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Vancouver, WA George Washington and Jefferson National Forest, Roanoke, VA Southern Region, Atlanta, GA Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC Headquarters, Washington, DC Natural Resources Conservation Service Natural Resources Conservation Service, Little Rock, Arkansas Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Business Center, Fort Worth, TX Headquarters, Washington, DC Rural Housing Service Rural Development-Rural Housing Service, Washington, DC Rural Housing Service, Little Rock, AR Rural Housing Service, Columbus, OH Washington DC Office, Washington, DC ARMY Department of the Army, Washington, DC Corps of Engineers Headquarters, Washington, DC Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, TX Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, TX U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Campbell, KY Garrison, Fort Hood, TX Garrison, Fort Riley, KS Southwest Civilian Personnel Operations Center, Fort Riley, KS Evans Army Community Hospital, Fort Carson, CO Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, El Paso, TX Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO Garrison, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX Headquarters, Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, PA Forces Command, Fort Carson, CO COMMERCE Department of Commerce, Washington, DC Office of Personnel Operations, Office of Human Resources Management Mountain Administrative Support Center, Boulder, CO Eastern Administrative Support Center, Norfolk, VA Western Administrative Support Center, NOAA, Seattle, WA Central Administrative Support Center, Kansas City, KS Census Census Bureau, Suitland, MD Data Preparation Division, Jeffersonville, IN Chicago Regional Office, Westchester, IL International Trade Administration International Trade Administration, Washington, DC National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Administration and Resource Management, Cincinnati, OH Regional Office (#10), Seattle, WA Region 1, Boston, MA Region 2, New York, NY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards AFB, CA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Central Plains Region Archives, Kansas City, MO National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO Federal Records Center, Kansas City, MO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC VETERANS AFFAIRS Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA Domiciliary, White City, OR Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA Veterans Benefit Administration, Denver Western Area, Lakewood, CO Medical Centers VAMC, Ann Arbor, MI VAMC, Poplar Bluff, MO VAMC, San Francisco, CA VAMC, Louisville, KY VAMC, Columbia, SC VAMC, Nashville, TN VAMC, Birmingham, AL VAMC, St. Louis, MO VAMC, Muskogee, OK VAMC, West Palm Beach, FL Regional Offices VARO, Oakland, CA VARO, Atlanta, GA VARO, Chicago, IL VARO, St. Louis, MO VARO, Seattle, WA