Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Labor Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans' Employment Services Gao ID: GAO-06-176 December 30, 2005Roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in recent months, a figure that could swell considerably with the anticipated increase in the number of people leaving active duty. Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act in 2002 to improve employment and training services for veterans and to encourage employers to hire them. As mandated by law, GAO reviewed progress to date in its implementation, including the development of new staff roles and responsibilities, performance accountability system, incentive awards, and priority of service to veterans. GAO examined (1) implementation status of the key provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is known about services and outcomes since the law's enactment, and (3) changes in program accountability.
Labor implemented most provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) within the first 2 years of its enactment. However, some are not fully implemented, such as measures to increase service priority for veterans in the full spectrum of Labor's training programs, and others designed to improve accountability from states and federal contractors. States also report substantial progress implementing the law, but challenges remain in some areas. About one-third of the states, for example, did not establish incentive award programs for their workforce personnel because their laws, policies, or agreements conflict with this JVA provision. Most state workforce administrators surveyed reported that the new legislation has improved both the quality of services to veterans and their employment outcomes. They credited the greater availability of case management services under JVA for much of the improvement in employment. They cited lack of federal contractor compliance with the law's provisions as most likely to have limited veterans' employment opportunities. Aside from the law's influence, they cited the willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the local job market as significant factors affecting veterans' employment. About half of state directors of Veterans' Employment and Training reported their new monitoring role had strengthened local program accountability. However, just over a third reported that accountability had either lessened or not improved. Some partly attributed this to absence of local performance data and fewer annual visits to one-stop centers. GAO found, as well, that a lack of coordination among Labor's agencies responsible for certain JVA provisions has weakened accountability. Also, while Labor has developed a system to monitor program performance, it lacks a strategy for using the information it gathers to make improvements and to help states.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-176, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans' Employment Services
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-176
entitled 'Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions
Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to
Veterans' Employment Services' which was released on December 30, 2005.
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 Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2005:
Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
Labor Actions Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States
Implement Reforms to Veterans' Employment Services:
GAO-06-176:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-176, a report to congressional committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in recent months, a
figure that could swell considerably with the anticipated increase in
the number of people leaving active duty. Congress passed the Jobs for
Veterans Act in 2002 to improve employment and training services for
veterans and to encourage employers to hire them. As mandated by law,
GAO reviewed progress to date in its implementation, including the
development of new staff roles and responsibilities, performance
accountability system, incentive awards, and priority of service to
veterans. GAO examined (1) implementation status of the key provisions
and any associated challenges, (2) what is known about services and
outcomes since the law‘s enactment, and (3) changes in program
accountability.
What GAO Found:
Labor implemented most provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA)
within the first 2 years of its enactment. However, some are not fully
implemented, such as measures to increase service priority for veterans
in the full spectrum of Labor‘s training programs, and others designed
to improve accountability from states and federal contractors. States
also report substantial progress implementing the law, but challenges
remain in some areas. About one-third of the states, for example, did
not establish incentive award programs for their workforce personnel
because their laws, policies, or agreements conflict with this JVA
provision.
Most state workforce administrators surveyed reported that the new
legislation has improved both the quality of services to veterans and
their employment outcomes. They credited the greater availability of
case management services under JVA for much of the improvement in
employment. They cited lack of federal contractor compliance with the
law‘s provisions as most likely to have limited veterans‘ employment
opportunities. Aside from the law‘s influence, they cited the
willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the local
job market as significant factors affecting veterans‘ employment.
About half of state directors of Veterans‘ Employment and Training
reported their new monitoring role had strengthened local program
accountability. However, just over a third reported that accountability
had either lessened or not improved. Some partly attributed this to
absence of local performance data and fewer annual visits to one-stop
centers. GAO found, as well, that a lack of coordination among Labor‘s
agencies responsible for certain JVA provisions has weakened
accountability. Also, while Labor has developed a system to monitor
program performance, it lacks a strategy for using the information it
gathers to make improvements and to help states.
Advertisement on City Bus for the Hire Vets First Promotional Campaign:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that the Department of Labor provide clear guidance
that would integrate veterans‘ staff into the one-stops, ensure
priority of service for veterans among all programs, and foster state
use of incentives. GAO is also recommending that Labor‘s program
offices coordinate their oversight regarding JVA provisions, and that
Labor use monitoring results to develop program improvements. Finally,
GAO recommends that Labor establish effective methods for enforcing
federal contractor requirements. Labor agreed with these
recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-176.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most JVA Provisions Have Been Carried Out, but Not without Some
Challenges:
State Administrators Reported Improvement in Veterans' Services and
Employment Outcomes:
Absence of Local Level Data and Lack of Coordinated Oversight Weaken
Program Accountability:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER Grant Funding, Fiscal Years
2003 and 2005:
Appendix III: State Incentive Award Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal
Year 2004:
Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for Veterans Entering Employment
through the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 2004 and 2005:
Appendix V: States' Use of Full-Time and Part-Time Veterans' Staff:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA:
Table 2: Summary of Labor's Completed and Planned Actions to Implement
Selected JVA Provisions, as of December 2005:
Table 3: Veterans' Participation in ETA Programs for Adult Job Seekers,
Program Year 2003:
Table 4: Development of DVOP and LVER Performance Measures and
Reporting Requirements:
Table 5: Utilization of DVOP Staff:
Table 6: Utilization of LVER Staff:
Figures:
Figure 1: State Workforce Administrators with Positive Comments on the
Quality of Labor's Guidance and Assistance on New Roles for Veterans'
Staff:
Figure 2: Allocation of Projected Total Expenditures of the President's
National Hire Veterans Committee through Fiscal Year 2005:
Figure 3: Extent to Which the Committee's Promotional Activities Have
Benefited Veterans in Obtaining Employment:
Figure 4: State Actions to Implement JVA in more than 75 Percent of
Local Offices or One-Stop Centers, as of October 2005:
Figure 5: Use of Part-Time Veterans' Staff in Local Offices:
Figure 6: Effect of Incentive Award Program on Staff Integration,
Morale, and Performance:
Figure 7: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was Enacted:
Figure 8: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment:
Figure 9: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from Obtaining
Employment:
Figure 10: Extent That VETS' New Monitoring Role Strengthened
Performance Accountability at the Local Level:
Figure 11: Extent to Which VETS' Monitoring Tools Strengthened
Performance Accountability:
Figure 12: Methods Used to Coordinate Monitoring Activities between
VETS and ETA:
Abbreviations:
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:
CPS: Current Population Survey:
DVOP: Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
JVA: Jobs for Veterans Act:
LAUS: Local Area Unemployment Statistics:
LVER: Local Veterans' Employment Representative:
NVTI: National Veterans' Training Institute:
OFCCP: Office of Contract Compliance Programs:
VETS: Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 30, 2005:
The Honorable Larry E. Craig:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel Akaka:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Steve Buyer:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lane Evans:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
In recent years, roughly 700,000 veterans have been unemployed in any
given month, and that figure could swell considerably with the
anticipated increase in the number of service members currently leaving
active duty and returning to civilian life--approximately 200,000 a
year, according to the Department of Labor (Labor). Since we last
reported on veterans' employment and training services,[Footnote 1]
Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) to improve employment
and training services for veterans and to encourage employers to hire
them. The act made several changes to the two Labor programs that focus
exclusively on veterans and that are administered by the Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (VETS): the Disabled Veterans' Outreach
Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative
program (LVER). It clarified the respective roles of DVOP and LVER
staff and required the establishment of a performance accountability
system, and an incentive award program. JVA provided states
administering the programs more flexibility by funding both programs
through one allocation, allowing states to choose the mix of staff and
whether they would be hired on a full-time or part-time basis.
Additionally, it called for the integration of DVOP and LVER staff into
the one-stop delivery system established in 1998 under the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) to streamline services provided by federal
employment and training programs. JVA expanded Labor's focus on
veterans by requiring that all of the agency's training programs give
veterans priority in receiving their services, within their target
population. It also required Labor to establish a national minimum
standard--or threshold--for veterans' employment. Finally, to encourage
businesses to hire veterans, the act established a committee to develop
a national campaign promoting veterans and updated existing
requirements that employers who receive federal contracts advertise job
openings at the appropriate employment service delivery system and
report on their veteran hiring practices.
In light of the many changes introduced by the Jobs for Veterans Act,
and as mandated by the act, we conducted a study on the implementation
of its provisions. In reviewing federal and state progress in carrying
out the act's provisions, we examined (1) the implementation status of
the key provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is known
about services and outcomes since the law's enactment, and (3) how
accountability has changed for the Disabled Veterans' Outreach and
Local Veterans' Employment Representative programs.
To obtain information to address our objectives, we administered two
surveys, one to the state directors of veterans' employment and
training and the other to state workforce administrators in all 50
states and the District of Columbia. We received responses from all 51
state directors of veterans' employment and training and 50 state
workforce administrators[Footnote 2]. We validated the survey
instruments through pretest but did not verify the information
respondents provided. To further understand local area approaches to
JVA implementation, we visited 10 local one-stop centers in five
states: California, Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, and Washington. We
selected these states on the basis of several criteria, including
geographic dispersion, range of sizes as determined by funding
allocation, whether the state had implemented JVA's incentive award
program, and recommendations by Labor, veterans' service organizations,
and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. On the basis
of these organizations' recommendations, we then chose two local one-
stop centers that were either further along in implementation or were
facing some challenges. Our site visits at the state level included
interviews with officials from the Veterans' Employment and Training
Service and state workforce agency; at the local level, we interviewed
one-stop management and staff, including veterans' staff. In addition,
we also visited the National Veterans' Training Institute in Denver,
Colorado, where we interviewed training officials, state-level
Veterans' Employment and Training officials, and veterans' staff from
24 states who were attending training classes. We also met with
representatives of various veterans' service organizations and the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Finally, we spoke
with federal officials at other Labor agencies responsible for
implementing JVA, including the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Women's Bureau,
Office of Disability Employment Policy, and Bureau of International
Labor Affairs. For a greater discussion of our scope and methodology,
see appendix I. Our work was conducted between January and November
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Labor took action to implement most JVA provisions within the first 2
years of the new legislation. For example, Labor issued guidance on new
roles and responsibilities for DVOP and LVER staff as well as
implemented a new funding formula for allocating grant funds to states.
However, federal actions are still outstanding for certain provisions
designed to give priority to veterans in Labor training programs,
update federal contractor regulations, and improve state accountability
for veteran employment. For example, Labor agencies have not provided
complete guidance to grantees required to provide priority of service
to veterans in the various Labor training programs, or on reporting
requirements. In addition, the department anticipates it will be 2007
before sufficient trend data will be available to replace individual
state goals for veterans' employment with a national standard common to
all states. Also, Labor has not updated regulations on federal
contractors' hiring and reporting practices because of a lack of
consensus and coordination on how to implement and enforce this
provision. States reported good progress in implementing provisions
through October 2005, but challenges remain in certain states and local
areas. For example, most states reported that veterans' staff have
transitioned to their new roles and responsibilities in over 75 percent
of local workforce offices, but that integration with other staff in
some local offices remains a challenge. Similarly, about one-third of
states reported that they did not establish incentive programs
recognizing high-quality veterans' services because this JVA
requirement conflicts with state laws, policies, or collective
bargaining agreements. While most state workforce administrators
reported on our survey that good progress has been made in implementing
priority of service for veterans in Labor training programs, officials
in some areas we visited were unaware of or confused by Labor's
guidance on this JVA requirement.
Most state workforce administrators reported that the new legislation
has improved the quality of services to veterans, including disabled
veterans, and has also improved employment outcomes. They credited the
greater availability of case management services through DVOP staff,
citing this factor most often in helping veterans obtain employment. In
contrast, state administrators reported that the lack of federal
contractor compliance with the requirement to list job openings at the
local one-stop centers has limited veteran employment opportunities.
Non-JVA factors also played a significant role in employment outcomes.
In particular, administrators cited the willingness of employers to
hire veterans and the strength of the local job market as significant
factors.
While about half of state VETS directors reported that their monitoring
role under JVA had strengthened local accountability for the DVOP and
LVER programs, just over a third reported that it had either lessened
or not improved. Monitoring tools most often reported to strengthen
accountability were analysis of local level performance data and site
visits to local offices. However, VETS directors in 21 states reported
that local-level data were unavailable, potentially limiting federal
oversight of local office performance in these states to site visits
conducted every 5 years. Although not specifically required by JVA, the
lack of coordinated oversight by agencies within Labor that share
responsibility for implementing certain JVA provisions weakens
performance accountability. For example, only five state VETS directors
reported taking a coordinated approach with ETA to monitor local office
performance, share results, and take corrective action. Also, in terms
of federal oversight, VETS lacks a strategy to use monitoring results
to improve program performance. For example, state performance goals
for the rate at which veterans enter employment range from 38 percent
to 65 percent, but VETS has not proactively identified why goals are
lower in some states than in other states and targeted these states for
assistance.
To improve the way JVA is implemented, we are making a number of
recommendations to Labor regarding integration of veterans' staff into
the one-stops, priority of service across all programs, best practices
on awarding performance incentives, coordinated monitoring efforts, and
also implementation and enforcement of federal contractor requirements.
In its written comments, Labor generally concurred with our findings
and recommendations.
Background:
JVA[Footnote 3] amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code, the legislation that
governs the DVOP and LVER programs, and by doing so, introduced an
array of reforms to the way employment, training, and placement
services are provided to veterans. (See table 1.) JVA addressed
concerns raised by some that Title 38 was overly prescriptive and did
not provide states the flexibility to determine the best way to serve
veteran job seekers. For example, JVA amended Title 38 by removing
provisions detailing the specific duties of DVOP and LVER staff and how
they were to be assigned.[Footnote 4] Under JVA, the states have the
authority to employ, subject to Labor's approval, a sufficient number
of full or part-time DVOP staff to provide intensive services to
eligible veterans, giving priority to disabled veterans and others as
Labor determines. Similarly, JVA gives the states authority to employ a
sufficient number of LVERs to carry out employment, training, and
placement services, including conducting outreach to employers and
facilitating services furnished to veterans under the applicable state
employment service delivery systems. Beginning July 2003, states and
localities were required to implement JVA provisions.
Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA:
State funding:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* Funding is available by grant or contract through two separate
allocations, each with its own funding formula that prescribes total
number and location of DVOP and LVER staff for each state;
* States submit grant applications to request funding;
JVA:
* Funding is available by grant or contract through one allocation
under a new funding formula that allows states to determine number of
DVOP and LVER staff;
* Requires state plan as a condition of funding, which must include a
description of how veterans' staff will be integrated into the service
delivery system, their duties, and the veterans' population to be
served.
Staff roles and responsibilities:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* Prescribes 11 specific duties for DVOP staff and 13 for LVER staff;
* Only LVER staff may be assigned on a part-time basis;
JVA:
* Clearly distinguishes DVOP and LVER staff roles and gives states
flexibility in deciding their duties;
* Allows both types of staff to be assigned on a part-time basis.
Priority of service:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* Eligible veterans and spouses of certain veterans receive priority of
service in those federally funded employment and training programs that
specifically require it;
JVA:
* Eligible veterans and spouses of certain veterans receive priority of
service in all Labor-funded employment and training programs.
Performance accountability:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* Performance measures emphasize processes over outcomes;
* National standard not required;
* Each local employment office evaluated annually;
JVA:
* Comprehensive performance accountability system consistent with WIA
performance measures;
* National performance standard for the rate at which veterans enter
employment, a rate that all states are expected to meet;
* Annual performance reviews of veterans' services without specifying
how many local offices will be evaluated.
Incentive awards:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* No incentive award program;
JVA:
* Incentive award program to encourage the improvement and
modernization of veterans' services and recognize exemplary staff.
Committees:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* No such committee;
JVA:
* President's National Hire Veterans Committee to market veterans as a
viable workforce resource.
Federal contractors:
Title 38 before JVA amendments:
* Requires regulations for employers with federal contracts of $25,000
or more to list all their job openings as appropriate, give veterans
priority in referral to those jobs, and report on their hiring
practices;
JVA:
* Raises federal contract threshold amount to $100,000 or more,
requires contractors to list their job openings and give veterans
priority in referral to those jobs, and modifies categories of veterans
to be reported.
Source: GAO analysis of Title 38 and JVA legislation.
[End of table]
Within Labor, two agencies---VETS and ETA--share responsibility for
helping the nation's veterans find employment. Among the programs that
VETS administers are the DVOP and LVER programs, which were funded at
about $162 million in fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 5] Prior to JVA,
funding for these two programs was allocated as two separate grants to
states. Under JVA, however, the DVOP and LVER grants are allocated as
one funding stream to states, and states use this funding to support
nearly 2,400 veterans' specialist and representative positions
nationwide. To promote the professional competence of these veterans'
service providers, VETS received about $2 million in fiscal year 2005
for the National Veterans' Training Institute to develop and deliver
training. In addition, JVA authorized funding for the newly created
President's National Hire Veterans Committee at a level of $3 million
annually, from fiscal year 2003 through 2005, to carry out its
marketing and promotional activities, and stipulated that the committee
would terminate in February 2006, 2 months after issuing a final annual
report on its activities.
VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide network that
includes representation in each of Labor's six regions and staff in
each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS administers
the agency's activities through regional administrators and state
directors. The state directors are the link between VETS and the
states' employment service system that is overseen by ETA. The DVOP and
LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS, are part of states'
public employment services.
Employment services fall under the purview of ETA, which administers
the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services program, providing a
national system of public employment services to any individual seeking
employment--including a veteran--who is authorized to work in the
United States. Thus, those veterans considered job ready and not in
need of intensive services from a DVOP could instead be served by
employment service staff and receive such services as assessment,
counseling, job readiness evaluation, and placement. Veterans would
also be eligible to receive WIA-funded services. Like VETS, ETA carries
out its employment service program through staff in Labor's six regions
and workforce agencies in each state. In fiscal year 2005, ETA
requested about $700 million for the Wagner-Peyser program.
The DVOP and LVER programs, along with the Employment Services program,
are all mandatory partners in the one-stop center system created in
1998 by WIA and overseen by Labor, in which services provided by
numerous employment and training programs are made available through a
single network. JVA requires that veterans be given priority of service
in any job training program administered by Labor. This requirement
affects 23 Labor-funded workforce programs, including WIA and Wagner-
Peyser Employment Services. Labor's guidance requires states to modify
their strategic plans for workforce investment for the next 2 years,
addressing how veterans will be given priority and how veterans'
services will be provided through the state's one-stop service delivery
system.
Most JVA Provisions Have Been Carried Out, but Not without Some
Challenges:
Labor's implementation of JVA has been on track, with most provisions
in place within the first 2 years of the new legislation. For example,
Labor timely implemented new roles and responsibilities for veterans'
staff as well as the new funding formula for allocating grant funds to
states. However, Labor's implementation is still pending for provisions
designed to give veterans priority for participating in all Labor's
training programs, govern federal contractor hiring practices, and
improve states' accountability for increasing veterans' employment.
States also report good progress in implementing provisions, but
challenges remain in some local areas in terms of integrating veterans'
staff with other staff in local workforce centers and establishing
incentive programs as provided in JVA for recognizing quality services
to veterans.
Labor Is Generally on Track in Implementing Most JVA Provisions:
Labor has taken actions to implement most JVA provisions to reform
veterans' services since the law was enacted in November 2002. For
example, Labor has issued guidance clarifying the new roles and
responsibilities for veterans' staff, and has established criteria in
regulation, to implement the new funding formula for allocating grant
funds to states. (See table 2.) Additional Labor actions may be needed
to ensure progress in implementing other JVA provisions. These include
issuance of regulations requiring recent federal contractors to list
job openings and report on their veterans hiring practices, and
development of a national standard for veteran employment, needed to
complete its new performance accountability system for states.
Table 2: Summary of Labor's Completed and Planned Actions to Implement
Selected JVA Provisions, as of December 2005:
Prior to JVA:
Provision: Veterans' staff roles and responsibilities;
Labor's completed actions:
* VETS issued first of several guidance letters in September 2002.
National Veterans' Training Institute subsequently began conducting
training on JVA provisions for veterans' staff in 2003;
Labor's planned actions:
* Updates will occur as necessary.
JVA Enacted November 7, 2002:
First full program year following JVA[A]:
Provision: Performance accountability;
Labor's completed actions:
* VETS issued a guidance letter on new performance measures in July
2003;
Labor's planned actions:
* Labor anticipates that it will be 2007 before it can establish a
national standard that states must meet for veterans entering
employment.
Provision: Priority of service;
Labor's completed actions:
* ETA issued its first guidance letter for 15 programs in September
2003;
Labor's planned actions:
* Two of three other Labor agencies plan to issue guidance for their
programs.
Provision: National Hire Veterans Committee;
Labor's completed actions:
* Secretary of Labor began appointing members in 2003;
Labor's planned actions:
* None.
First full fiscal year following JVA[B]:
Provision: State grant funding;
Labor's completed actions:
* VETS allocated grants to states phased in over a 2-year period
beginning fiscal year 2004;
Labor's planned actions:
* None.
Provision: Incentive awards;
Labor's completed actions:
* VETS allocated incentive award funds to states beginning in fiscal
year 2004;
Labor's planned actions:
* None.
Second full fiscal year following JVA:
Provision: Federal contractors;
Labor's completed actions:
* VETS and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP)
drafted regulations on contractor affirmative action, job listings, and
reporting requirements;
Labor's planned actions:
* VETS and OFCCP anticipate issuing regulations in early 2006.
Source: GAO analysis of JVA provisions and Labor information.
[A] Program year 2003 was the first full program year under JVA and ran
from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004.
[B] Fiscal year 2004 was the first full fiscal year under JVA and ran
from October 1, 2003, to September 30, 2004.
[End of table]
Staff Roles and Responsibilities:
VETS took several steps to prepare veterans' staff for their new roles
and responsibilities under the law. VETS issued guidance and held
training classes, but officials cite challenges in providing all staff
with training on their new roles and responsibilities because of
resource limitations on the number of classes. VETS took action in
September 2002, before JVA was enacted, to issue guidance for DVOP and
LVER staff, and directed the National Veterans' Training Institute
(NVTI) to design training seminars to facilitate state and local
implementation in the next program year.[Footnote 6] The initial VETS
guidance, updated in later years, explained how the DVOP staff roles
and responsibilities were to transition to exclusively focus on
intensive services and outreach to veterans, while LVER staff were to
exclusively focus on outreach to employers and community organizations,
training other staff on veterans' issues, and quarterly reporting on
compliance with the law. Subsequent guidance issued in July 2005
discussed, among other topics, the flexibility states have under JVA to
decide number of DVOP and LVER staff hired on a full-time or part-time
basis. The later guidance also instructed each workforce area to report
quarterly on veterans' services. Almost three-quarters of the 50 state
workforce officials reported on our survey that the quality of Labor's
formal written guidance and technical assistance was good or excellent
in terms of facilitating implementation of new staff duties. (See fig.
1.) Conversely, no more than a dozen states characterized the guidance
and assistance as fair or poor.
Figure 1: State Workforce Administrators with Positive Comments on the
Quality of Labor's Guidance and Assistance on New Roles for Veterans'
Staff:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Shortly after JVA was enacted, Labor's training institute held a series
of implementation seminars that were attended by representatives from
all states. The institute continues to conduct and fund training for
DVOP and LVER staff. At the end of its first training year in October
2004, the institute reported having trained 282 DVOP staff in case
management. Similarly, at the end of its second training year in 2005,
the institute reported that 240 LVER staff were trained in employer
outreach. NVTI estimated that an additional 144 DVOP and 240 LVER staff
would be trained in these two courses each year in the future, but had
concerns that these numbers would cover only about 16 percent of all
veterans' staff each year, while annual staff turnover was averaging
about 18 percent. Training institute officials estimated that 48
additional sessions would be required to meet the needs of all staff in
these two course offerings in addition to the 80 training sessions
planned for veterans' staff over the institute's 5-year contract
period.
VETS officials confirmed a need for expanded training opportunities but
said that their authority to reallocate resources to NVTI is
limited.[Footnote 7] Overall, state and local workforce officials were
pleased with the quality of NVTI training. For example, a DVOP in a one-
stop center in California found that NVTI classes provided a valuable
opportunity to network and exchange ideas with other participants from
around the country. In a survey comment, a state administrator also
said that the NVTI Web site has been useful in helping the state keep
up with all aspects of JVA implementation and that the state makes
extensive use of NVTI's electronic discussion board to communicate with
other states.
Funding Formula:
VETS began using JVA's method for allocating DVOP and LVER grant funds
to states in the fiscal year beginning in October 2003. Under JVA, the
previously separate DVOP and LVER grants were merged into one grant for
veterans' staff, and states are now required to submit an application
for funding containing a plan describing how the state will furnish the
required employment, training and placement services, the veteran
population to be served, and any additional information Labor may
require. Labor was to award funds proportionately to the states with
approved applications, based on a ratio of the total number of veterans
residing in the state that are seeking employment to the total number
of veterans seeking employment in all states using criteria that Labor
may establish in regulation. JVA required Labor to phase in this new
method of providing funding to the states and provided that it may
establish minimum funding levels and hold harmless criteria for the
states.
VETS issued a final rule establishing criteria for making funds
available for veterans' employment services. It reserved up to 4
percent of the grant money available for unexpected needs and
transition assistance programs[Footnote 8] and allocated grants to
states using the new formula prescribed by law.[Footnote 9] During the
first 2 years of the required 3-year phase-in period, states were
provided with (1) a hold harmless rate of no less than 80 percent of
its previous year's allocation during fiscal year 2005 and 90 percent
thereafter, and (2) a minimum funding level of 0.28 percent of the
prior year's total funding level for all states. For example, the
minimum funding level for fiscal year 2004 was $439,000 ($156,811,000 x
.0028). Under the new formula, 4 states received about the same amount
of funding, while 31 states received a decrease of 5 percent or more
and 16 states received at least a 5 percent increase between fiscal
years 2003 and 2005. (See app. II for state funding allocations.)
Incentive Awards Program:
VETS issued guidance in May 2003 for an incentive award program to be
implemented by states in the first fiscal year after JVA. This guidance
laid out eligibility and selection criteria and examples of nonmonetary
awards, giving states flexibility to tailor their awards programs. JVA
required that states establish an incentive program to recognize
eligible employees for excellence or demonstrable improvement in the
provision of employment, training, and placement services. Under JVA,
Labor is to establish criteria, in consultation with the states, to be
used by the states in setting up the required incentive program. The
law provides further that the form of incentive award may be either a
cash or a nonfinancial award, as Labor may specify. The act provided
that beginning in program years during or after fiscal year 2004, 1
percent of the annual grant funds is to be used for making cash awards
under the state's incentive award program.
In accordance with JVA, VETS mandated that 1 percent of each state's
grant amount be used for incentive payments to staff. In total, VETS
allocated about $1.5 million for the incentive program in fiscal years
2004 and 2005. Of this amount, states used about $600,000 (40 percent)
during the first year of implementation, and VETS officials stated that
the remaining unexpended funds were returned to the Treasury. In
addition, VETS does not anticipate returning any incentive funds to the
Treasury in 2005. Instead, VETS informed Congress that any unspent
funds will be reallocated to the DVOP and LVER programs, according to
officials. (See app. III for state incentive program allocation and
expenditures in fiscal year 2004.)
Priority of Service:
Labor has only partially implemented the JVA requirement to give
priority service to veterans in its many employment training programs.
JVA added a new section to Title 38 on priority to veterans and spouses
of certain veterans in receiving employment and training services
through Labor-funded programs. In that section, Labor is given
authority to establish priorities among covered persons to take into
account the needs of disabled veterans and special disabled veterans.
This provision applies to 23 employment and training programs operated
by five Labor agencies--VETS, ETA, Women's Bureau, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, and the Bureau of International Labor Affairs.
Veterans automatically receive priority of service in the five programs
operated by VETS because these programs serve veterans exclusively.
However, for programs that serve additional populations and are
operated by other Labor agencies, priority of service for veterans is
applied differently once veterans meet the programs' eligibility
requirements. For example, under ETA's Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment
Services program, priority is to be given first to veterans and then to
all others. By contrast, under ETA's Senior Community Service
Employment program, priority is given to low-income individuals who are
first veterans and their qualified spouses aged 60 years or older;
second, other individuals who are at least 60 years old; third,
veterans and their qualified spouses who are 55 to 59 years old; and
fourth, other individuals who are 55 to 59 years old.
These Labor agencies are in different stages of providing guidance and
reporting requirements for veterans' service priority to the grantees
of their respective programs. ETA, for example, was somewhat delayed in
issuing an initial guidance letter for its 15 programs, notifying
grantees of the law's general requirements in September 2003, several
months after the first program year following JVA began. Both the
Women's Bureau and the Office of Disability Employment Policy have
included language on priority of service in their 2003 grant
solicitations, but officials told us that they have not issued further
guidance or established reporting requirements. In addition, officials
at the Bureau of International Labor Affairs said that their agency
funds overseas projects for which veterans are not eligible, such as a
project in Indonesia that focuses on the prevention of child labor.
Labor did not issue its required annual report to Congress for the
first program year of JVA, and its report to Congress for program year
2004 contained incomplete information regarding veterans' priority
among its training programs. JVA required Labor's annual report to
include three issues (1) whether veterans are receiving priority of
service; (2) whether they are being fully served; and (3) whether the
representation of veterans in programs is in proportion to their
representation in the labor market. Labor did not collect and report
data on the first two requirements for any of its programs, and
information on the third requirement was incomplete. Of its 23 programs
subject to the law's requirement, Labor reported veterans'
participation rates for only 11 ETA programs. (See table 3.) ETA
officials said that they were unable to collect data from participants
in all their programs because grantee data collection systems were not
in place.
The data that Labor reported for 11 of its programs showed that
veterans are essentially represented in proportion to their labor force
participation rate of 9.5 percent in five ETA programs that were aimed
at adult job seekers, while six programs fell short of the 9.5 percent
target participation rate. The report indicated that programs with
lower veteran participation rates tended to be those least applicable
to veterans, such as programs for migrant farm workers or youth.
Table 3: Veterans' Participation in ETA Programs for Adult Job Seekers,
Program Year 2003:
ETA adult programs: Wagner-Peyser Employment Services;
Number of veterans served: 1,421,977;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 9.4.
ETA adult programs: Trade Act;
Number of veterans served: 4,970;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 13.6.
ETA adult programs: WIA Adults;
Number of veterans served: 31,588;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 7.1.
ETA adult programs: WIA Dislocated Workers;
Number of veterans served: 34,943;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 9.6.
ETA adult programs: Senior Community Services Employment, age 55 and
up;
Number of veterans served: 10,853;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 10.1.
ETA adult programs: America's Job Bank;
Number of veterans served: 150,327;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 15.8.
ETA adult programs: National Emergency Grants;
Number of veterans served: 3,013;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 10.5.
ETA adult programs: H-1B Skills Grants[A];
Number of veterans served: 1,454;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 6.2.
ETA adult programs: Native American;
Number of veterans served: 398;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 2.2.
ETA adult programs: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker, adults;
Number of veterans served: 308;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 1.0.
ETA adult programs: Job Corps;
Number of veterans served: 114;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 0.2.
ETA adult programs: Total;
Number of veterans served: 1,659,945;
Veterans' participation rate (percent): 9.7.
Source: VETS 2004 annual report to Congress.
[A] Data collected and reported by 84.3 percent of H-1B grantees who
were operational in 2004.
[End of table]
Performance Accountability:
VETS established some new performance measures for the DVOP and LVER
grant programs, issuing guidance for state implementation beginning
July 2003, but officials state that it will be at least 2007 before
VETS can establish a national standard for employment outcomes that it
will require all states to meet. Under JVA, Labor was required, by May
2003, to establish and implement a comprehensive performance
accountability system to measure the performance of employment service
delivery systems, including disabled veterans' outreach program
specialists and local veterans' employment representatives. The
standards and measures in that system are supposed to be consistent
with state performance measures under WIA and be appropriately weighted
to provide special consideration for placement of veterans requiring
intensive services and veterans who enroll in readjustment counseling.
Additionally, Labor is required by JVA to issue regulations
establishing a uniform national threshold entered-employment rate for
veterans. As required by JVA, VETS based the new performance measures
on those for WIA. In doing so, it dropped two process measures--number
of veterans receiving counseling or some reportable service. It also
added several others focused primarily on outcomes--employment rates
following either staff-assisted or intensive services, and employment
retention rate. (See table 4.) VETS officials told us they made
additional modifications to the performance accountability system when,
in July 2005, they adopted the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
new common performance measures. Under this change, VETS established a
new performance measure for individuals who got a job by comparing
their earnings 6 months before they enroll in a program with earnings 6
months after they exit the program.
Table 4: Development of DVOP and LVER Performance Measures and
Reporting Requirements:
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Entered employment rate;
Before program year 2002: Yes;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans placed
in training;
Before program year 2002: Yes;
Program years 2002 to 2004: No;
Program year 2005: No.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans
receiving counseling;
Before program year 2002: Yes;
Program years 2002 to 2004: No;
Program year 2005: No.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans
receiving some reportable service;
Before program year 2002: Yes;
Program years 2002 to 2004: No;
Program year 2005: No.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Federal contractor jobs
filled by Vietnam and special disabled veterans;
Before program year 2002: Yes;
Program years 2002 to 2004: No;
Program year 2005: No.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Employment rate following
receipt of staff-assisted services;
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Employment rate following
receipt of intensive services[A];
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Employment retention rate
at 6 months;
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans placed
in federal training;
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans placed
in federal jobs;
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: No.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Number of veterans that
entered into federal contractor jobs;
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: Yes;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Performance measure or reporting requirement: Earnings increase at 6
months;
Before program year 2002: No;
Program years 2002 to 2004: No;
Program year 2005: Yes.
Source: Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor.
[A] Intensive services were formerly referred to as case management.
[End of table]
VETS officials said that they have changed the method they use to
calculate the entered employment measure and collect source data.
Initially, VETS measured job placements that tracked whether a veteran
was referred to, hired, and retained in a specific job. With WIA's
enactment in 1998, VETS began tracking the entered-employment rate or
percentage of all registered veterans who were placed in or obtained
employment. However, states had different policies regarding how and
when veterans were registered, resulting in inconsistent performance
data.[Footnote 10] During this time, VETS also moved from a manual
follow-up system to identify how many veterans obtained jobs to an
automated system using unemployment insurance wage records.[Footnote
11] The resulting changes in state reporting systems have delayed the
setting of a national standard for veterans' employment. VETS
anticipates that it will need at least 3 years under the OMB measures
to collect the comparable trend data needed to establish the national
performance standard holding all states accountable to the same minimum
goal for veterans entering employment. In the interim, VETS issued
guidance in May 2004 on how it would negotiate individual performance
goals with states. These goals ranged from 38 to 65 percent in program
years 2004 and 2005. (See app. IV.)
National Hire Veterans Committee:
Approximately 15 months passed as the Secretary of Labor appointed
members to the President's National Hire Veterans Committee, and these
members worked with a contractor to begin the national campaign to make
employers and businesses more aware of veterans through the public
workforce system.
JVA provided for the establishment of the National Hire Veterans
Committee, whose purpose is to furnish information to employers with
respect to the training and skills of veterans and disabled veterans,
and the advantages to employers of hiring veterans with such training
and skills and to facilitate employment of veterans and disabled
veterans through participation in America's Career Kit national labor
exchange and other means. The Secretary of Labor is required to appoint
the 15 members of the committee and the chairman. Labor is required to
submit a report to Congress on the activities of the committee annually
for 2003, 2004, and 2005. The report is to contain data concerning the
placement and retention of veterans in jobs attributable to the
activities of the committee.
Labor initiated action during the third and fourth quarters of calendar
year 2003 by appointing the 15 committee members from the various
public and private organizations required by law. Starting in February
2004, the committee held the first of its required quarterly meetings
in Washington, D.C., and held nearly all of its six subsequent meetings
in various parts of the country in order to increase media coverage.
The meetings allow committee members to monitor activities, develop
strategies, and hold public forums on veterans' employment issues.
The committee also hired a contractor in 2004 to carry out a national
campaign to promote the hiring of veterans and to inform veteran job
seekers of the public workforce resources available to them. The
campaign included a Web site,[Footnote 12] activated in October 2004,
which offered an electronic clearinghouse to facilitate a match between
employers and veteran job-seekers and help veterans conduct their job
searches. The campaign has run magazine advertisements in Business Week
and HR Magazine (the magazine for the Society of Human Resource
Management) and posted banner ads on electronic job boards that
targeted private sector employers, advising them to recruit veterans
through one-stop centers. Finally, the committee persuaded 44 state
governors to proclaim a "Hire Vets First" month to demonstrate state
support.
Although JVA authorized $3 million a year for the committee's
activities, according to a committee official, these funds were not
appropriated and funds were drawn from VETS' administrative budget
instead. The committee has projected that its cumulative total
expenditures will be about $2.2 million through fiscal year 2005.
Contract services, which account for approximately 60 percent of
expenditures, are predominately for implementing the national campaign
and associated marketing and media activities. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Allocation of Projected Total Expenditures of the President's
National Hire Veterans Committee through Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
A majority of the state workforce administrators reported on our survey
that the committee's promotional activities have been beneficial to
some degree in helping veterans get jobs. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 3: Extent to Which the Committee's Promotional Activities Have
Benefited Veterans in Obtaining Employment:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Federal Contractors:
Labor has not yet issued updated regulations for federal contractors
with regard to affirmative action in hiring veterans, although Labor
officials said they plan to issue regulations in 2006. As with the
prior Title 38 provision, under JVA, federal contractors are to (1)
implement affirmative action in employing qualified veterans, (2) list
their employment openings with the appropriate employment service
delivery system, and (3) submit an annual report on their hiring and
employment of qualified veterans. However, JVA amended the Title 38
provision by raising the dollar amount of covered contracts from
$25,000 to $100,000 and by modifying the categories of veterans to
which this provision applies by creating a new definition of "covered
veteran." In addition, the law added another reporting requirement to
the annual report, providing that contractors must report the total
number of all current employees in each job category and at each hiring
location. JVA provides that these amendments apply to contractors with
federal contracts of $100,000 or more entered into on or after December
1, 2003.
As under the prior Title 38 provision, JVA requires Labor to issue
regulations implementing these requirements. Labor has not yet issued
updated regulations, but VETS officials said that Labor plans to issue
regulations that would, among other things, clarify the new categories
of covered veterans. In the meantime, Labor has issued guidance stating
that contractors receiving contracts before December 1, 2003, are
subject to existing regulations and reporting categories of veterans.
For contracts awarded on or after December 1, 2003, of $100,000 or
more, the guidance states that contractors are not required to file the
annual report until VETS has completed its regulatory clearance process
and new regulations are published implementing the changes made by JVA.
Two Labor agencies are responsible for issuing regulations covering
these requirements--VETS and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP)--but action has been delayed because of a lack of
consensus and coordination within Labor on how to implement and enforce
them, according to officials. On the basis of their experience, VETS
officials were concerned about the feasibility and usefulness of the
contractor requirements. They said that there is no central repository
of contractors to identify which ones are subject to the requirements,
that the reporting requirements are burdensome for employers, and they
are not relevant in evaluating the program's effectiveness. Further,
VETS officials said that they lack enforcement authority over
contractors that do not comply. Instead, OFCCP has this authority.
VETS has nevertheless drafted regulations requiring contractors to
report on their veteran hiring practices, and OFCCP has drafted
regulations concerning affirmative action and job listings. Pending OMB
approval, they will be issued in early 2006, according to Labor
officials. Advocates from veterans service organizations believe that
regulations are necessary to ensure federal contractor compliance, and
state workforce administrators from 18 states agree--reporting that
half or fewer local workforce offices had been able to increase the
number of federal contractor jobs they could list and fill since JVA
was enacted.
States Report Good Progress Implementing JVA, but Challenges Remain in
Certain States and Local Areas:
State workforce agency administrators report good progress in
implementing JVA provisions, but challenges remain in certain states
and local areas. During the first year of JVA implementation, state
workforce agencies were required to transition veterans' staff to their
new roles and responsibilities, establish the incentive program to
enhance staff performance, and implement priority of service to
veterans in Labor training programs. The majority of state workforce
administrators reported that three-fourths or more of local offices had
transitioned veterans' staff to their new roles through greater focus
on intensive services and employer outreach. (See fig. 4.) State
administrators also reported the most progress in providing electronic
services to veterans and least progress in establishing incentive
programs for improving service to veterans.
Figure 4: State Actions to Implement JVA in more than 75 Percent of
Local Offices or One-Stop Centers, as of October 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Staff Roles and Responsibilities:
The majority of state workforce administrators reported that veterans'
staff had transitioned to a greater focus on intensive services and
employer outreach in most local offices. However, a minority reported
using JVA's flexibility to establish part-time[Footnote 13] veterans'
staff positions. Also, integration of veterans' staff into the one-stop
centers was still problematic in some offices. Our survey data showed
that 22 states had part-time DVOP staff, 33 used part-time LVER staff,
and 17 had part-time positions for both types of staff. (See app. V for
information on states' use of full-and part-time veterans' staff.) VETS
officials from several states we visited told us that having the
flexibility to use part-time DVOP and LVER staff allowed the state to
provide veterans' services in more locations and reach more veterans in
the community, including those in remote rural areas. However, some
other state and local workforce officials told us that part-time
staffing could, in some cases, hamper service to veterans, particularly
if more than 50 percent of such time were devoted to performing office
duties such as staffing the reception desk and answering the phone.
The use of part-time veterans' staff was limited. For example, just
over half of the states reported not using any part-time DVOP staff in
their local offices, and over a quarter did not use any part-time
LVERs. (See fig. 5.) One reason may be lack of guidance in this area.
About one-quarter (12 states) of state workforce administrators
responding to our survey characterized Labor's guidance and technical
assistance for making effective use of part-time veterans' staff as
fair or poor.
Figure 5: Use of Part-Time Veterans' Staff in Local Offices:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Finally, Labor officials said that integrating veterans' staff into the
one-stop offices has been a persistent challenge and can hinder
services to veterans. According to the DVOP and LVER staff we
interviewed, the degree of their integration has varied widely in local
areas and has depended on the level of support from the one-stop
managers of veterans' programs. For example, one DVOP staff member we
interviewed told us that the veterans' program is highly integrated
with the WIA program in her local one-stop, with both DVOP and WIA
staff sharing case management responsibilities for veterans. In
addition, she participates in regular meetings with the other one-stop
partners. She attributed this cohesion to her manager's commitment to
work cooperatively with all the partners. In contrast, a DVOP staff
member from another state told us that his manager sometimes resented
veterans' staff because they do not serve nonveteran clients or help
with other one-stop activities.
Another reason cited by veterans' staff for poor levels of integration
was that other one-stop staff members were not educated or trained to
serve veterans. In addition, Labor's guidance and technical assistance
to integrate veterans' staff within the one-stop was ranked only fair
or poor by more than one-quarter of state workforce administrators
responding to our survey. Some states have taken action to mitigate the
challenges. Ohio workforce officials, for example, requested the
National Veterans' Training Institute to come to their state and
conduct orientation training for all one-stop partners, identifying the
training as a best practice, in part to address integration challenges.
Individual one-stop centers in such states as Ohio and California have
also taken steps to enhance integration. They have cross-trained other
partner staff on serving veterans and veterans' staff may potentially
conduct orientation and job search workshops for mixed groups of job-
seekers that included veterans.
Incentive Awards Program:
Nationwide, 32 of the 50 state workforce administrators we surveyed
reported implementing an incentive awards program for veterans'
services. Incentives were perceived by some as effective in improving
veterans' services in the state. For example, administrators in 16
states with award programs in place reported that their program had a
positive effect on improving or modernizing veterans' services. The
remaining 7 administrators either said that their incentive programs
had no effect and 8 believed it was still too early to say. Although
most states had included other one-stop partners in their incentive
award programs, at least 10 respondents reported that the incentive
program either had no effect on improving staffs' performance, morale,
or integration with veteran's staff or that it was too early to tell.
(See fig. 6.)
Figure 6: Effect of Incentive Award Program on Staff Integration,
Morale, and Performance:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In the five states we visited, VETS and workforce officials told us the
incentive program was a good concept. However, not all had implemented
the program. In fact, 17 states have reported not implementing the
incentive program.[Footnote 14] For example, California has cited state
laws prohibiting monetary or other gifts to employees for performing
their duties. In Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, the
2005 state plans indicated that performance incentive awards were
incompatible with the states' collective bargaining agreements. Idaho,
on the other hand, cited potential morale problems among nonveteran
staff with limited opportunities to serve veterans and was exploring
other options for creating incentives. VETS officials said that they
withhold the incentive program money from states that do not implement
the program.
States that implemented the incentive program have made awards in
different ways. In one state, a one time cash award of $1,000 was
divided among all one-stop staff, amounting to as little as $16 each.
By contrast, some DVOP staff told us that in another state, individuals
received as much as $4,000 each. Incentives for staff in one state we
visited were based on nominations by supervisors using performance
data, while supervisors in another state were relying on staff to
nominate themselves. VETS officials told us that some states had been
more successful than others in designing their awards program and
acknowledged it would be beneficial to disseminate their ideas and
practices.
Priority of Service:
Workforce administrators in 36 states reported that one-stop centers
were giving priority of service to veterans entering Labor's training
programs. However, administrators from 11 other states reported that
less than half of local offices were providing priority to veterans.
Whether this has affected veterans' ability to participate in these
programs is not known. Only four state workforce administrators
reported that waiting lists for Labor training programs impeded
employment to a great or very great extent. In contrast, the other 46
state administrators reported waiting lists were a factor to a lesser
extent, so that veterans would not necessarily have to be prioritized
over other job seekers.
If training resources were to fall short of demand, however, Labor's
guidance would be insufficient for determining who would receive
service priority, according to some local one-stop officials we met
with. Moreover, a 2004 Urban Institute study conducted for Labor
reported that employment services staff need more training on how to
implement priority of service across programs.[Footnote 15] ETA issued
specific program guidance to states on its Web site in 2004, but some
workforce officials were not aware that ETA had posted additional
guidance, and other officials still found ETA's guidance confusing and
incomplete. ETA officials told us that they do not plan to issue any
further guidance until WIA is reauthorized, at which time they plan to
respond to all state feedback by issuing a consolidated document for
all their training programs. However, it is not known when WIA will be
reauthorized or when the consolidated guidance will be issued. ETA
officials said that until then, they would work to educate service
delivery staff by means of national conferences and promotional
activities at the one-stop centers about how to give priority to
veterans.
State Administrators Reported Improvement in Veterans' Services and
Employment Outcomes:
According to VETS data we examined, 46 states have met their negotiated
goals for veterans' employment outcomes under the DVOP program and 42
states have met similar goals under the LVER program. While it is too
early to determine whether or how JVA's reforms are responsible, most
state workforce administrators we surveyed believed that the reforms
have improved the quality of services to veterans, including disabled
veterans, and have improved their employment outcomes. They credited
the greater availability of case management services under JVA for much
of the improvement in employment. State administrators reported, on the
other hand, that federal contractor failure to list job openings at the
local one-stop centers was most likely to delay or prevent some
employment. Aside from the new law, administrators considered some non-
JVA factors as significant for veterans' employment success, including
the willingness of employers to hire veterans and the strength of the
local job market.
In their responses to our survey, many state workforce administrators
associated JVA reforms with improvements. Overall, 33 of the 50 state
workforce administrators reported that veterans' employment services
have improved in their respective states since enactment of the law.
They most often reported that DVOPs were spending more time on case
management since JVA, although somewhat fewer states reported that
services to disabled veterans had similarly improved. (See fig. 7.)
Figure 7: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was Enacted:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Regarding actual employment results, 33 state workforce administrators
also reported improvement. These respondents attributed the improvement
both to the law's reforms and to other factors. The reform cited most
often as helping veterans obtain employment was the increased
availability of case management or other intensive services through the
DVOP program (39 states). (See fig. 8.) The reform least cited was the
requirement to give priority to veterans in referrals to federal
contractor jobs. Only 22 state administrators said it had improved
outcomes. Beyond the reforms themselves, administrators said veterans'
employment was influenced by employer willingness or desire to hire
veterans and by the strength of the local job market. They reported
that employment was also influenced by the transferability of veterans'
existing skills to other jobs.
Figure 8: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State workforce administrators also reported what they viewed as
obstacles to employing veterans. Specifically, lack of federal
contractor listing of job openings, as required under law, was most
likely to delay or prevent employment. (See fig. 9.) Other obstacles,
such as veterans not receiving priority of referral for federal
contractor jobs and waiting lists for training programs, were cited
less than half as often. Non-JVA factors also presented obstacles to
employment, the most frequent one being a poor local job market. This
factor was cited nearly more than twice as often as other factors, such
as non-transferability of veterans' skills to available jobs or
employer reluctance to hire veterans with National Guard or Reserve
commitments.
Figure 9: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from Obtaining
Employment:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Absence of Local Level Data and Lack of Coordinated Oversight Weaken
Program Accountability:
While VETS directors in 26 states reported that their monitoring role
had strengthened local performance accountability, the remainder
reported no effect or a negative effect. In our survey, 21 state VETS
directors reported that key veterans employment data are not collected
at the local level or available through other means. Performance
accountability is also weakened by the lack of coordinated oversight
among Labor agencies responsible for implementing JVA reforms and by
the absence of a strategy for using monitoring results to improve
program performance and help states that lag behind.
Unavailability of Performance Data at Many Local Offices Weakens
Accountability:
Under JVA, states took on greater responsibility for assessing their
own performance, and while VETS modified its monitoring practices in
response, the unavailability of local level performance data in many
states has limited federal oversight and weakened local level
accountability. Prior to JVA, the law required VETS directors to
annually review every local employment service office or one-stop
center where DVOP or LVER staff were located. Since JVA's enactment,
however, VETS directors review states' own assessments of performance
and are required to visit each local office once every 5 years. VETS
completed its first round of monitoring in 2004 using four primary
review tools:
* State JVA plans for compliance with program requirements;
* Annual state self-assessments to ensure the approved state plan is
being effectively implemented, determine the state's progress toward
meeting its performance goals, identify technical assistance and
training needs, and identify best practices;
* State quarterly performance and management reports on veterans'
services and employment outcomes; and:
* Annual site visits to 20 percent of local offices within each state
to validate information in self-assessments.
State VETS directors responding to our survey most often reported that
their monitoring role under JVA has had a positive effect on local
accountability. (See fig. 10.) Specifically, 27 state directors
reported their monitoring role had a positive effect on local
accountability. However, 19 directors reported their monitoring role
either had no effect or a negative effect on local accountability.
Figure 10: Extent That VETS' New Monitoring Role Strengthened
Performance Accountability at the Local Level:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some monitoring approaches were regarded as more effective than others.
The most beneficial were analysis and use of data captured in states'
performance reports, along with on-site reviews of local offices. (See
fig. 11.) For example, more than half of 51 state VETS directors said
that analyzing the performance reports had improved accountability.
Cited by only 15 directors, state self-assessments were considered the
least beneficial tool. Respondents from the remaining states reported
that their monitoring activities had little to no effect--or had a
negative effect--on performance accountability.
Figure 11: Extent to Which VETS' Monitoring Tools Strengthened
Performance Accountability:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Despite the reported benefits of analyzing performance data reports and
visiting local offices, however, data were not always available to help
monitor local offices, limiting federal oversight and weakening local
level accountability. For example, VETS directors in 21 states noted
that VETS 200 performance data were not available at the local level.
In these states, federal oversight of local office performance may be
limited to the on-site monitoring visits required once every 5 years.
Lack of Coordinated Oversight among Labor Agencies also Weakens
Accountability:
Labor's several agencies responsible for carrying out JVA reforms have
not coordinated their monitoring activities to ensure consistent and
timely oversight, or used information collected through their
monitoring to help states in greatest need of assistance. For example,
the five Labor agencies[Footnote 16] operating the 23 training programs
required to provide service priority to veterans did not work together
to determine what type of oversight would be needed to ensure that
grantees comply with the law. Nor have they established common
reporting requirements.[Footnote 17]
Similarly, the two Labor agencies responsible for implementing federal
contractor requirements have not coordinated their monitoring efforts,
despite VETS' limited enforcement authority. VETS collects reports from
federal contractors on their veteran hiring and employment practices,
but VETS officials told us that only the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has enforcement authority. Thus, if a
contractor fails to submit an annual report, VETS cannot take action
against the contractor and must rely on OFCCP to address the issue
during its compliance review. VETS directors in two states we visited
said that coordination between the two agencies was lacking and they
had seen little evidence of monitoring and enforcement by the
compliance office.
Similarly, the lack of coordination between VETS and ETA has weakened
oversight of the DVOP and LVER programs. While VETS is responsible for
monitoring both programs, ETA oversees other workforce programs that
serve veterans and nonveterans, such as WIA and Wagner-Peyser
Employment Services. However, the two agencies do not generally
coordinate their monitoring activities or share the results. State VETS
directors responding to our survey said that some coordination occurs
between VETS and ETA when they review state plans for compliance with
JVA and WIA, but it is less likely to occur during other types of
monitoring activities. Although about half of state VETS directors
reported that they coordinated with ETA on reviewing state plans, only
five said that they met with them to share the results and take joint
action. (See fig. 12.)
Figure 12: Methods Used to Coordinate Monitoring Activities between
VETS and ETA:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Finally, VETS lacks a strategy for using the information it gathers in
monitoring programs to improve performance across states and local
areas, according to officials. While Labor has authority under JVA to
provide technical assistance to states that are deficient in
performance or need help, VETS has yet to begin addressing the
significant variation in performance levels among states, as reflected
by their widely divergent goals negotiated with VETS. For example, in
program years 2004 and 2005, states' negotiated goals for the rate at
which veterans entered employment, ranging from 38 to 65 percent,
depending on past performance, while Labor's national employment goal
for veterans was 58 percent.[Footnote 18] Although more than half of
the state goals were short of Labor's target, nationally, VETS has not
been proactive in determining why certain states are falling behind and
in targeting them for assistance. Decisions on how to support states
remain with the individual state VETS directors who must work without
the overview and insight of national information.
Conclusions:
The employment reforms under JVA represent a significant shift for
veterans' employment and training services, not only because they
changed how services are provided through DVOP and LVER staff, but also
because they provided more latitude to states in implementing the law,
allowing them to tailor service delivery to best meet the needs of
their veteran job seekers. Our work suggests Labor and states are
making steady progress in implementing most JVA provisions. However,
the transition of DVOP and LVER roles and responsibilities, along with
establishing and monitoring a new performance accountability system,
may take years to achieve and fine-tune. For those states with an
incentive award program, the wide variation in methodology for awarding
incentives suggests that states could benefit from strategies on how
best to implement their programs. Similarly, strategies are needed to
address the long-standing challenge states have faced in integrating
veterans into their service delivery system. Without clear guidance,
veterans' service providers may work in isolation from other providers,
hindering staff from leveraging the full array of resources available
to assist veteran job seekers. In addition, if waiting lists for Labor
training programs become more prevalent, clear guidance and reporting
of how well programs are providing priority of service to veterans will
become especially important. VETS questions the effectiveness of
federal contractor reporting requirements and Labor has not yet issued
updated regulations; yet states cite lack of contractor job listings as
the most likely factor to limit employment opportunities for veterans.
In the absence of Labor actions to improve the ability of states and
local areas to identify contractors who are subject to the requirement
and enforce compliance, additional employment opportunities for
veterans may be missed.
The flexibility states and localities have to implement JVA allows them
to try innovative ways to best meet the needs of veterans in their
area. By the same token, greater flexibility underscores the need for
greater accountability to ensure that programs are on the right track
in serving clients. Such accountability can be facilitated by robust
monitoring and information systems at the state and local levels that
can highlight areas in which states and localities are lagging behind.
Accountability can be hindered, however, by failure to tailor the type
and intensity of monitoring to the relative strength or weakness of
local offices and states, as well as differences in the availability of
local level information. Similarly, in the absence of a coordinated
approach to guiding and monitoring veterans' services among Labor
agencies, programs may not be consistently implementing JVA's reforms
or be held accountable for doing so.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better ensure that Labor workforce programs are serving veterans as
required by JVA, we recommend that Labor agencies collaborate to:
* Provide states and local areas with clear guidance and assistance for
providing priority of service for all veterans and integrating
veterans' staff into the one-stops or other workforce centers.
* Disseminate best-practice information to states on methodologies to
award meaningful performance incentives.
* Monitor the extent to which all Labor workforce programs are
providing priority of service to veterans.
* Strategically use monitoring results to target guidance and technical
assistance to states and local areas most in need of improved
performance.
To achieve results from JVA's provisions regarding veteran hiring
practices of federal contractors, Labor should issue regulations as
soon as possible and explore effective methods of enforcement.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its
review and comment. Labor's comments are reproduced in appendix VI. In
its comments, Labor concurred with our findings and recommendations and
noted that its two agencies with primary responsibility for employment
assistance to veterans, VETS and ETA will be working together to better
coordinate their efforts to assist veterans. Specifically, Labor
concurred that additional actions are needed to better integrate
veterans' staff into one-stop centers, share best practices for
awarding performance incentives, monitor priority of service for
veterans, and use monitoring results to improve program performance. In
addition, Labor said it would expedite issuing federal contractor
regulations and explore effective methods of regulation enforcement.
Further, while Labor generally concurred with our recommendation to
provide clear guidance and assistance for providing priority of service
for veterans, Labor stated that it believes priority of service has
been implemented more fully than the report indicates, citing
publication of guidance for 15 programs on its Web site and the launch
of an initiative designed to raise awareness among veterans and one-
stop center professionals. Our report discusses the extent of Labor's
actions in issuing guidance, but our assessment, as well as opinions
from some state and local officials, is that Labor guidance on priority
of service for its 23 workforce training programs has been uneven and
sometimes insufficient.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. Copies will be
made available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the implementation
status of the key provisions and any associated challenges, (2) what is
known about services and outcomes since the law's enactment, and (3)
how accountability has changed for the Disabled Veterans' Outreach and
Local Veterans' Employment Representative programs.
To address each of these objectives, we:
* conducted two Web-based surveys, the first one surveying all 50
states and the District of Columbia workforce administrators and the
second surveying the Department of Labor's Directors of Veterans'
Employment and Training Services (VETS) in the 50 states and the
District of Columbia;
* conducted site visits to state workforce agencies and local
employment offices and one-stop centers, as well as state Directors of
VETS offices in five states; and:
* interviewed representatives of national organizations with expertise
in the issues of veterans' employment, including staff of the
President's National Hire Veterans Committee.
More detailed information on each of these aspects is presented below.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards between January and November 2005.
Survey Development and Implementation:
Our survey of state workforce administrators as well as our survey of
Directors of VETS addressed all three objectives and included questions
about implementation of the Jobs for Veterans Act, its impact on
services and outcomes, performance accountability, and monitoring.
The surveys were developed based on knowledge obtained during our
preliminary research. This included a review of pertinent literature
and interviews with members and representatives of organizations that
conduct research on and perform policy analysis of veterans' employment
issues and programs. We also conducted a site visit to the state
workforce agency and the VETS office in the state of Washington to
obtain an understanding of veterans' employment programs and how the
state uses them to increase employment among veterans. The surveys were
pretested with cognizant state veterans' employment officials and state
Directors of VETS in Washington, Colorado, and North Carolina to
determine whether respondents would understand the questions the way
they were intended. Revisions were made to the surveys based on
comments received during the pretests.
We sent notifications of the Web-based survey in July 2005 and followed
up with additional e-mail messages and telephone calls as necessary
during August and September. In October, we closed data collection for
both surveys. At that time, all Directors of VETS had responded to
their survey and 50 of the 51 state workforce administrators had done
so. (The District of Columbia did not complete the survey.) We did not
independently verify information obtained through the survey.
Because we surveyed state workforce administrators and VETS directors
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, no sampling error is
associated with our work. However, nonsampling error could figure into
any data collection effort and involves a range of issues that could
affect data quality and introduce unwanted variability into the
results. We took several steps to minimize nonsampling errors. For
example, GAO survey methodologists and staff with subject matter
expertise collaboratively designed both Web-based survey instruments.
Each of the surveys was pretested in three states to ensure that the
Web-based surveys were relevant, clear, complete, and easy to
comprehend. To the extent possible, we compared the responses we
received on the surveys with our site visit observations.
Data from the two Web-based surveys were converted into separate
databases and analysis was performed. Finally, a second, independent
analyst checked all computer analyses.
Site Visits to State Workforce Agencies and Directors of VETS:
To obtain a detailed understanding of the impact of the Jobs for
Veterans Act on states and the activities of the Directors of VETS, we
conducted visits to five states. We visited the state of Washington in
the preliminary phase of our work and four other states--California,
Florida, Louisiana, and Ohio--in a later phase. We selected these
states on the basis of several criteria including geographic
dispersion, range of sizes as determined by funding allocation, whether
the state had implemented JVA's incentive award program, and
recommendations by Labor, veterans' service organizations, and the
National Association of State Workforce Agencies. On the basis of these
organizations' recommendations, we then chose two local one-stop
centers that were either far along in implementation or were facing
some challenges. Our site visits at the state level included interviews
with officials from the state workforce agency and VETS; at the local
level, we interviewed one-stop management and staff, including
veterans' staff.
During each of these interviews, we used a standard interview protocol
that enabled us to obtain more detailed--yet comparable--information
than states were able to provide in the survey. In our interviews with
the state workforce agency, we discussed the status of implementation
of the Jobs for Veterans Act, the incentive awards program, monitoring
of local employment offices and one-stops for priority of service and
the use of part-time DVOP and LVER staff. At the local offices, we
discussed the implementation of the act, its impact on veterans'
employment, specific benefits the act achieved, and obstacles to the
complete implementation of the act's provisions. Finally, we
interviewed Directors of VETS and their staff, discussing the changes
in monitoring one-stops and local employment offices, the
accountability of local offices and one-stops, and coordination between
VETS and ETA. Our site visit work was conducted between April and
August 2005.
Other Work:
As part of our work, we reviewed pertinent literature and interviewed
representatives of the following organizations:
* National Veterans' Training Institute in Denver, Colorado;
* Veterans' staff from 24 states attending the training institute;
* President's National Hire Veterans Committee;
* National Association of State Workforce Agencies;
* The following Labor agencies: VETS, ETA, Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs, Women's Bureau, Office of Disability Employment
Policy, and Bureau of International Labor Affairs; and:
* The following veterans' service organizations: Disabled American
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States, and Vietnam Veterans of America.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comparison of DVOP and LVER Grant Funding, Fiscal Years
2003 and 2005:
States receiving 5 percent or more increase in funding from 2003 to
2005:
State: Arizona;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,767,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,929,000;
Percentage change: 66.
State: Delaware;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $382,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000;
Percentage change: 16.
State: Florida;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $7,439,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $8,507,000;
Percentage change: 14.
State: Georgia;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,219,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $4,336,000;
Percentage change: 35.
State: Kansas;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,394,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,523,000;
Percentage change: 9.
State: Kentucky;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,587,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,281,000;
Percentage change: 44.
State: Louisiana;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,564,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,319,000;
Percentage change: 48.
State: Mississippi;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,222,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,476,000;
Percentage change: 21.
State: Nevada;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,239,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,299,000;
Percentage change: 5.
State: New Jersey;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,275,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,927,000;
Percentage change: 20.
State: North Carolina;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,984,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $4,722,000;
Percentage change: 19.
State: South Carolina;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,854,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,467,000;
Percentage change: 33.
State: Tennessee;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,313,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,206,000;
Percentage change: 39.
State: Texas;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $9,393,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $11,602,000;
Percentage change: 24.
State: Utah;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $881,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,042,000;
Percentage change: 18.
State: Virginia;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,368,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,861,000;
Percentage change: 15.
States receiving about the same amount of funding in 2003 and 2005:
State: California;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $18,114,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $17,749,000;
Percentage change: -2.
State: Colorado;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,520,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,625,000;
Percentage change: 4.
State: Indiana;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,074,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,130,000;
Percentage change: 2.
State: Washington;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $4,052,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $4,154,000;
Percentage change: 3.
States receiving 5 percent or more decrease in funding from 2003 to
2005:
State: Alabama;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,438,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,316,000;
Percentage change: -5.
State: Alaska;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $687,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $520,000;
Percentage change: -24.
State: Arkansas;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,695,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,430,000;
Percentage change: -16.
State: Connecticut;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,963,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,904,000;
Percentage change: -36.
State: District of Columbia;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $475,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000;
Percentage change: -7.
State: Hawaii;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $755,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $598,000;
Percentage change: -21.
State: Idaho;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $936,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $779,000;
Percentage change: -17.
State: Illinois;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $7,957,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $6,536,000;
Percentage change: -18.
State: Iowa;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,333,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,497,000;
Percentage change: -36.
State: Maine;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,040,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $763,000;
Percentage change: -27.
State: Maryland;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,125,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,887,000;
Percentage change: -8.
State: Massachusetts;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,345,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,092,000;
Percentage change: -8.
State: Michigan;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $6,634,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $5,439,000;
Percentage change: -18.
State: Minnesota;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,414,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,698,000;
Percentage change: -21.
State: Missouri;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,641,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,342,000;
Percentage change: -8.
State: Montana;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $815,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $536,000;
Percentage change: -34.
State: Nebraska;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $964,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $887,000;
Percentage change: -8.
State: New Hampshire;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $815,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $729,000;
Percentage change: -11.
State: New Mexico;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,107,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $990,000;
Percentage change: -11.
State: New York;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $10,561,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $8,355,000;
Percentage change: -21.
State: North Dakota;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $606,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000;
Percentage change: -27.
State: Ohio;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $8,436,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $6,308,000;
Percentage change: -25.
State: Oklahoma;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,325,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $1,862,000;
Percentage change: -20.
State: Oregon;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $2,503,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $2,363,000;
Percentage change: -6.
State: Pennsylvania;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $7,662,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $6,472,000;
Percentage change: -16.
State: Rhode Island;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $642,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $534,000;
Percentage change: -17.
State: South Dakota;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $527,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000;
Percentage change: -16.
State: Vermont;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $623,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000;
Percentage change: -29.
State: West Virginia;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $1,018,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $931,000;
Percentage change: -9.
State: Wisconsin;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $3,221,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $3,063,000;
Percentage change: -5.
State: Wyoming;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $494,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $444,000;
Percentage change: -10.
Total;
2003 actual budget allocation (base): $156,398,000;
2005 actual budget allocation (base): $152,650,000.
Source: Labor's VETS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: State Incentive Award Allocation and Expenditures, Fiscal
Year 2004:
State: Alabama;
Allocation: $23,780;
Expended: $18,590;
Unexpended: $5,190.
State: Alaska;
Allocation: $5,500;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $5,500.
State: Arizona;
Allocation: $29,000;
Expended: $29,000;
Unexpended: $0.
State: Arkansas;
Allocation: $13,970;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $13,970.
State: California;
Allocation: $179,240;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $179,240.
State: Colorado;
Allocation: $24,230;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $24,230.
State: Connecticut;
Allocation: $23,700;
Expended: $14,200;
Unexpended: $9,500.
State: Delaware;
Allocation: $4,465;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $4,465.
State: District of Columbia;
Allocation: $4,400;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $4,400.
State: Florida;
Allocation: $83,010;
Expended: $81,284;
Unexpended: $1,726.
State: Georgia;
Allocation: $36,050;
Expended: $36,050;
Unexpended: $0.
State: Hawaii;
Allocation: $6,200;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $6,200.
State: Idaho;
Allocation: $8,070;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $8,070.
State: Illinois;
Allocation: $65,150;
Expended: $59,498;
Unexpended: $5,652.
State: Indiana;
Allocation: $35,109;
Expended: $35,109;
Unexpended: $0.
State: Iowa;
Allocation: $18,660;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $18,660.
State: Kansas;
Allocation: $15,410;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $15,410.
State: Kentucky;
Allocation: $22,560;
Expended: $14,571;
Unexpended: $7,989.
State: Louisiana;
Allocation: $24,760;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $24,760.
State: Maine;
Allocation: $8,320;
Expended: $8,316;
Unexpended: $4.
State: Maryland;
Allocation: $29,727;
Expended: $10,000;
Unexpended: $19,727.
State: Massachusetts;
Allocation: $28,770;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $28,770.
State: Michigan;
Allocation: $53,070;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $53,070.
State: Minnesota;
Allocation: $27,310;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $27,310.
State: Mississippi;
Allocation: $15,250;
Expended: $15,925;
Unexpended: $- 675.
State: Missouri;
Allocation: $31,580;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $31,580.
State: Montana;
Allocation: $6,520;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $6,520.
State: Nebraska;
Allocation: $8,840;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $8,840.
State: Nevada;
Allocation: $12,590;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $12,590.
State: New Hampshire;
Allocation: $7,140;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $7,140.
State: New Jersey;
Allocation: $38,200;
Expended: $27,053;
Unexpended: $11,147.
State: New Mexico;
Allocation: $9,832;
Expended: $9,832;
Unexpended: $0.
State: New York;
Allocation: $84,490;
Expended: $3,704;
Unexpended: $80,786.
State: North Carolina;
Allocation: $47,610;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $47,610.
State: North Dakota;
Allocation: $4,850;
Expended: $4,493;
Unexpended: $357.
State: Ohio;
Allocation: $67,490;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $67,490.
State: Oklahoma;
Allocation: $18,600;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $18,600.
State: Oregon;
Allocation: $22,550;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $22,550.
State: Pennsylvania;
Allocation: $66,100;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $66,100.
State: Rhode Island;
Allocation: $5,320;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $5,320.
State: South Carolina;
Allocation: $24,430;
Expended: $24,180;
Unexpended: $250.
State: South Dakota;
Allocation: $4,390;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $4,390.
State: Tennessee;
Allocation: $31,670;
Expended: $32,740;
Unexpended: $- 1,070.
State: Texas;
Allocation: $110,580;
Expended: $95,468;
Unexpended: $15,112.
State: Vermont;
Allocation: $5,030;
Expended: $2,700;
Unexpended: $2,330.
State: Virginia;
Allocation: $38,150;
Expended: $33,392;
Unexpended: $4,758.
State: Washington;
Allocation: $41,330;
Expended: $35,244;
Unexpended: $6,086.
State: West Virginia;
Allocation: $9,850;
Expended: $7,386;
Unexpended: $2,464.
State: Wisconsin;
Allocation: $30,600;
Expended: $21,287;
Unexpended: $9,313.
State: Wyoming;
Allocation: $4,390;
Expended: $0;
Unexpended: $4,390.
Total;
Allocation: $1,528,203;
Expended: $630,097;
Unexpended: $898,106.
Source: Labor's VETS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: State-Negotiated Goals for Veterans Entering Employment
through the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Years 2004 and 2005:
State: Alabama;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Alaska;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 51;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: Arizona;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 60;
LVER performance goal (percent): 58.
State: Arkansas;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53;
LVER performance goal (percent): 53.
State: California;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 50;
LVER performance goal (percent): 51.
State: Colorado;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 59.
State: Connecticut;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53;
LVER performance goal (percent): 55.
State: Delaware;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56;
LVER performance goal (percent): 55.
State: District of Columbia;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53;
LVER performance goal (percent): 58.
State: Florida;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 61;
LVER performance goal (percent): 61.
State: Georgia;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 65;
LVER performance goal (percent): 65.
State: Hawaii;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 45;
LVER performance goal (percent): 42.
State: Idaho;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 46;
LVER performance goal (percent): 59.
State: Illinois;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 45;
LVER performance goal (percent): 46.
State: Indiana;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 46;
LVER performance goal (percent): 54.
State: Iowa;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 57;
LVER performance goal (percent): 57.
State: Kansas;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Kentucky;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Louisiana;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 59.
State: Maine;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 58.
State: Maryland;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Massachusetts;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 53;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Michigan;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 46;
LVER performance goal (percent): 48.
State: Minnesota;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 50;
LVER performance goal (percent): 52.
State: Mississippi;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 59.
State: Missouri;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 48;
LVER performance goal (percent): 49.
State: Montana;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 60;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Nebraska;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 64;
LVER performance goal (percent): 62.
State: Nevada;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: New Hampshire;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 64;
LVER performance goal (percent): 65.
State: New Jersey;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 54;
LVER performance goal (percent): 57.
State: New Mexico;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: New York;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 57.
State: North Carolina;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: North Dakota;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 59;
LVER performance goal (percent): 63.
State: Ohio;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 50;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: Oklahoma;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 60;
LVER performance goal (percent): 60.
State: Oregon;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 47;
LVER performance goal (percent): 54.
State: Pennsylvania;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 54;
LVER performance goal (percent): 59.
State: Rhode Island;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: South Carolina;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 59;
LVER performance goal (percent): 59.
State: South Dakota;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 64.
State: Tennessee;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 38;
LVER performance goal (percent): 38.
State: Texas;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 58;
LVER performance goal (percent): 57.
State: Utah;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 51;
LVER performance goal (percent): 57.
State: Vermont;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: Virginia;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 55;
LVER performance goal (percent): 56.
State: Washington;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 51;
LVER performance goal (percent): 54.
State: West Virginia;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 52;
LVER performance goal (percent): 51.
State: Wisconsin;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 56;
LVER performance goal (percent): 58.
State: Wyoming;
DVOP performance goal (percent): 48;
LVER performance goal (percent): 57.
Source: Labor's VETS.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: States' Use of Full-Time and Part-Time Veterans' Staff:
Table 5: Utilization of DVOP Staff:
State: Alabama;
Full-time DVOP staff: 16;
Part-time DVOP staff: 1;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Alaska;
Full-time DVOP staff: 1;
Part-time DVOP staff: 6;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Arizona;
Full-time DVOP staff: 35;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Arkansas;
Full-time DVOP staff: 9;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 9.
State: California;
Full-time DVOP staff: 123;
Part-time DVOP staff: 10;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Colorado;
Full-time DVOP staff: 20;
Part-time DVOP staff: 4;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 4.
State: Connecticut;
Full-time DVOP staff: 8;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Delaware;
Full-time DVOP staff: 5;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: District of Columbia;
Full-time DVOP staff: 2;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Florida;
Full-time DVOP staff: 66;
Part-time DVOP staff: 10;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Georgia;
Full-time DVOP staff: 50;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Hawaii;
Full-time DVOP staff: 4;
Part-time DVOP staff: 1;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Idaho;
Full-time DVOP staff: 4;
Part-time DVOP staff: 2;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Illinois;
Full-time DVOP staff: 38;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 10.
State: Indiana;
Full-time DVOP staff: 26;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Iowa;
Full-time DVOP staff: 15;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 15.
State: Kansas;
Full-time DVOP staff: 12;
Part-time DVOP staff: 11;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Kentucky;
Full-time DVOP staff: 10;
Part-time DVOP staff: 3;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Louisiana;
Full-time DVOP staff: 14;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Maine;
Full-time DVOP staff: 6;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 6.
State: Maryland;
Full-time DVOP staff: 25;
Part-time DVOP staff: [A];
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Massachusetts;
Full-time DVOP staff: 20;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 4.
State: Michigan;
Full-time DVOP staff: 31;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 15.
State: Minnesota;
Full-time DVOP staff: 21;
Part-time DVOP staff: 4;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Mississippi;
Full-time DVOP staff: 19;
Part-time DVOP staff: 12;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 11.
State: Missouri;
Full-time DVOP staff: 19;
Part-time DVOP staff: 13;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Montana;
Full-time DVOP staff: 7;
Part-time DVOP staff: 3;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 5.
State: Nebraska;
Full-time DVOP staff: 5;
Part-time DVOP staff: [A];
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Nevada;
Full-time DVOP staff: 5;
Part-time DVOP staff: 4;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: New Hampshire;
Full-time DVOP staff: 5;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: New Jersey;
Full-time DVOP staff: 33;
Part-time DVOP staff: 1;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: New Mexico;
Full-time DVOP staff: 9;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: New York;
Full-time DVOP staff: 55;
Part-time DVOP staff: [A];
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: North Carolina;
Full-time DVOP staff: 22;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: North Dakota;
Full-time DVOP staff: 2;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: Ohio;
Full-time DVOP staff: 58;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 38.
State: Oklahoma;
Full-time DVOP staff: 18;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Oregon;
Full-time DVOP staff: 18;
Part-time DVOP staff: 2;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Full-time DVOP staff: 37;
Part-time DVOP staff: 7;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: [A].
State: Rhode Island;
Full-time DVOP staff: 2;
Part-time DVOP staff: 1;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: South Carolina;
Full-time DVOP staff: 15;
Part-time DVOP staff: 8;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: South Dakota;
Full-time DVOP staff: 4;
Part-time DVOP staff: 9;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: Tennessee;
Full-time DVOP staff: 32;
Part-time DVOP staff: [A];
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: Texas;
Full-time DVOP staff: 86;
Part-time DVOP staff: 12;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Utah;
Full-time DVOP staff: 9;
Part-time DVOP staff: [A];
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Vermont;
Full-time DVOP staff: 2;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: Virginia;
Full-time DVOP staff: 35;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Washington;
Full-time DVOP staff: 36;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: West Virginia;
Full-time DVOP staff: 6;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: [A].
State: Wisconsin;
Full-time DVOP staff: 23;
Part-time DVOP staff: 0;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 10.
State: Wyoming;
Full-time DVOP staff: 1;
Part-time DVOP staff: 8;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 5.
Total;
Full-time DVOP staff: 1,124;
Part-time DVOP staff: 132;
Number of DVOP staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 153.
Source: Survey of Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training
Services.
[A] Indicates that the respondent did not know the answer to the
question.
[End of table]
Table 6: Utilization of LVER Staff:
State: Alabama;
Full-time LVER staff: 16;
Part-time LVER staff: 2;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Alaska;
Full-time LVER staff: 2;
Part-time LVER staff: 4;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Arizona;
Full-time LVER staff: 14;
Part-time LVER staff: 9;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 1.
State: Arkansas;
Full-time LVER staff: 10;
Part-time LVER staff: 6;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 14.
State: California;
Full-time LVER staff: 72;
Part-time LVER staff: 19;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Colorado;
Full-time LVER staff: 14;
Part-time LVER staff: 4;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: [A].
State: Connecticut;
Full-time LVER staff: 8;
Part-time LVER staff: [A];
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Delaware;
Full-time LVER staff: 3;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: District of Columbia;
Full-time LVER staff: 2;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Florida;
Full-time LVER staff: 56;
Part-time LVER staff: 9;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 4.
State: Georgia;
Full-time LVER staff: 25;
Part-time LVER staff: 30;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Hawaii;
Full-time LVER staff: 6;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Idaho;
Full-time LVER staff: 8;
Part-time LVER staff: 5;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Illinois;
Full-time LVER staff: 31;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 20.
State: Indiana;
Full-time LVER staff: 32;
Part-time LVER staff: 1;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Iowa;
Full-time LVER staff: 3;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Kansas;
Full-time LVER staff: 10;
Part-time LVER staff: 2;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Kentucky;
Full-time LVER staff: 15;
Part-time LVER staff: 12;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Louisiana;
Full-time LVER staff: 16;
Part-time LVER staff: 3;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 1.
State: Maine;
Full-time LVER staff: [A];
Part-time LVER staff: 8;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Maryland;
Full-time LVER staff: 17;
Part-time LVER staff: [A];
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Massachusetts;
Full-time LVER staff: 19;
Part-time LVER staff: [A];
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Michigan;
Full-time LVER staff: 29;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 11.
State: Minnesota;
Full-time LVER staff: 14;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 14.
State: Mississippi;
Full-time LVER staff: 0;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 18.
State: Missouri;
Full-time LVER staff: 26;
Part-time LVER staff: 13;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Montana;
Full-time LVER staff: 1;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Nebraska;
Full-time LVER staff: 3;
Part-time LVER staff: 15;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Nevada;
Full-time LVER staff: 6;
Part-time LVER staff: 1;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 1.
State: New Hampshire;
Full-time LVER staff: 6;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 1.
State: New Jersey;
Full-time LVER staff: 13;
Part-time LVER staff: 8;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 1.
State: New Mexico;
Full-time LVER staff: 10;
Part-time LVER staff: 8;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 9.
State: New York;
Full-time LVER staff: 50;
Part-time LVER staff: [A];
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: North Carolina;
Full-time LVER staff: 43;
Part-time LVER staff: 35;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: North Dakota;
Full-time LVER staff: 5;
Part-time LVER staff: 3;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 5.
State: Ohio;
Full-time LVER staff: 11;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 6.
State: Oklahoma;
Full-time LVER staff: 16;
Part-time LVER staff: 18;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Oregon;
Full-time LVER staff: 14;
Part-time LVER staff: 9;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Pennsylvania;
Full-time LVER staff: 33;
Part-time LVER staff: 22;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: [A].
State: Rhode Island;
Full-time LVER staff: 3;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 1.
State: South Carolina;
Full-time LVER staff: 17;
Part-time LVER staff: 15;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: South Dakota;
Full-time LVER staff: 1;
Part-time LVER staff: 1;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
State: Tennessee;
Full-time LVER staff: 30;
Part-time LVER staff: 7;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Texas;
Full-time LVER staff: 91;
Part-time LVER staff: 18;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Utah;
Full-time LVER staff: 6;
Part-time LVER staff: 7;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 7.
State: Vermont;
Full-time LVER staff: 2;
Part-time LVER staff: 3;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Virginia;
Full-time LVER staff: 27;
Part-time LVER staff: 8;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 0.
State: Washington;
Full-time LVER staff: 24;
Part-time LVER staff: 0;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: West Virginia;
Full-time LVER staff: 6;
Part-time LVER staff: 4;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: [A].
State: Wisconsin;
Full-time LVER staff: 18;
Part-time LVER staff: [A];
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 3.
State: Wyoming;
Full-time LVER staff: 1;
Part-time LVER staff: 1;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 2.
Total;
Full-time LVER staff: 885;
Part-time LVER staff: 310;
Number of LVER staff that serve more than one local workforce area in
the state: 138.
Source: Survey of Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training
Services.
[A] Indicates that the respondent did not know the answer to the
question.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Veteran's Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
DEC 20 2005:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report "Veterans'
Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to Improve
Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans'
Employment Services" (GAO-06-176). The Department of Labor (DOL)
generally concurs with the findings of this report and is pleased that
the report indicates that DOL is on track in implementing the
provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) and also indicates that
JVA is reported to have had positive impact on veterans' services and
employment outcomes.
Our agencies, the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) and
the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), have primary
responsibility for implementing JVA within the U.S. Department of
Labor. The key provisions of JVA applicable to our agencies have
complementary implications that require ongoing close coordination. For
those reasons, we are jointly sharing responsibility for these
comments, which are generally structured within the framework of the
five Recommendations for Executive Action. Because GAO's first
recommendation addresses two areas of application, we have treated
those two areas separately in our response.
Provide States and Local Areas with Clear Guidance and Assistance
Regarding the Integration of Veterans' Staff into One-Stop Career
Centers: DOL concurs with thus recommendation. As a structural aspect
of the workforce system, it is essential that Disabled Veterans'
Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local Veterans' Employment
Representative (LVER) staff be fully integrated into One-Stop Career
Centers so that they can assist veterans to access the full range of
workforce services. To improve this important aspect of service
integration, VETS and ETA have undertaken two collaborative initiatives
and have planned a third. ETA, in partnership with VETS and the
Department of Defense, recently launched the "Key to Career Success"
initiative to provide clear guidance to One-Stop Career Center staff
regarding veterans' issues and priority of service requirements. VETS
launched the REALifelines initiative in October 2004 to mobilize One-
Stop resources to deliver personalized career development services to
veterans and transitioning service members severely injured in the
Global War on Terrorism. To support that initiative, VETS collaborated
with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (ASP) to develop
a web-based REALifelines Advisor to provide job training information
and services through the VETS State Directors and the One-Stop Career
Centers. In addition, VETS plans to initiate a sponsored study during
this fiscal year to examine the impacts on veterans' services and
outcomes of JVA and other structural realignments underway within the
workforce system. A key objective of that study will be to identify
specific areas in which clear guidance and assistance are required to
improve the integration of DVOP specialists and LVER staff into One-
Stop operations.
Provide States and Local Areas with Clear Guidance and Assistance
Regarding the Provision of Priority of Service DOL generally concurs
with this recommendation. In addition to ETA and VETS, priority of
service also applies to three other DOL agencies identified in the
report (Women's Bureau, Office of Disability Employment Policy, and
Bureau of International Labor Affairs). However, ETA bears the primary
responsibility for providing policy guidance to grantees regarding
implementation of the priority of service provisions, due to the number
and size of the programs ETA oversees. While many of the programs
impacted by priority of service might benefit from additional
clarifications or from the provision of technical assistance, DOL
believes that the priority of service provision has been implemented
more completely than the report indicates. ETA published policy
guidance and launched a dedicated web site that includes questions and
answers specifying distinct criteria for applying priority of service
to 15 programs. That guidance is consistent with our interpretation of
the priority provision to mean that veterans are eligible for priority
of selection to participate in a specific program after they have met
all the other statutory eligibility requirements for that program.
Because of the interaction between priority of service and the specific
requirements of the impacted programs, the application of priority of
service will necessarily take different forms, particularly where
another statutory priority must be applied in conjunction with priority
o^ service. In addition to policy guidance, as mentioned above, ETA and
VETS launched the Keys to Career Success initiative designed to raise
awareness of veterans and One-Stop system professionals regarding the
need to provide priority of service to veterans.
Disseminate Best Practices for Incentive Award Programs: DOL concurs
with the recommendation that the best practices developed for incentive
award programs should be shared among the States. This is appropriate
due to the States' relative inexperience with this type of program and
to the diverse approaches that they have followed to date.
Implementation of this recommendation should improve the State
incentive award programs. However, absent an amendment to provide
increased flexibility, it is unlikely that all States will be able to
make use of incentive funds for cash awards to individual employees.
DOL believes that there are alternatives to the current program, such
as a national awards program.
Monitor the Extent That All Labor Workforce Programs Are Providing
Priority of Service: DOL concurs with this recommendation. DOL is
responsible for evaluating whether covered persons are receiving
priority of service and has worked to ensure that current monitoring
protocols include monitoring for priority of service. DOL agrees that
additional guidance to Federal Project Officers; would be valuable, as
would the implementation of alternative evaluation methods, including
improved data collection.
Target Monitoring Results for Program Improvement: DOL concurs with
this recommendation. In the past year, ETA and VETS have taken a
significant step to improve coordination of monitoring activities. For
some time, ETA has designated regional accountability specialists and
has maintained information exchange within this network by hosting bi-
weekly conference calls and convening periodic meetings. Recognizing
the value of this approach, VETS recently designated regional
accountability specialists which are now part of the same communication
network. Having regional accountability specialists in both agencies
working collaboratively provides the foundation for pursuing joint
planning and conduct of monitoring visits, and joint enforcement of
corrective actions. To support joint monitoring, VETS intends to revise
the monitoring guides for Jobs for Veterans grants by focusing on
quality of service and accountability for performance.
Achieve Results from JVA's Federal Contractor Hiring Provisions: DOL
concurs with this recommendation. In response to the findings regarding
the Federal Contractor Program (FCP), VETS will improve coordination
with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to
expedite the issuance of revised regulations for FCP. OFCCP has drafted
the Jobs for Veterans Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which
will be published in the near future.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charles S. Ciccolella:
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual mentioned above, Lacinda Ayers, Assistant
Director; R. Jerry Aiken; Susan Bernstein; Jessica Botsford; Meeta
Engle; Stuart Kaufman; Robert Miller; Emily Pickrell; Jay Smale; and
Dianne Whitman-Miner made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment
Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations on
Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs. GAO-05-662T. Washington,
D.C.: May 12, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and
Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans. GAO-01-928.
Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance
Measurement System Improved, but Further Changes Needed. GAO-01-580.
Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Strategic and Performance
Plans Lack Vision and Clarity. GAO/T-HEHS-99-177. Washington, D.C.:
July 29, 1999.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal
Year 1999 Performance Plan. GAO/HEHS-98-240R. Washington, D.C.:
September 30, 1998.
Veterans' Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor
Department Programs. GAO/HEHS-98-7. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 1997.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and
Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans, GAO-01-928
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2001).
[2] The state workforce administrator from the District of Columbia did
not respond.
[3] Pub. L. No. 107-288 (2002).
[4] Prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that there was to be one DVOP for
each 7,400 veterans in a state and prescribed 11 functions the DVOP
staff to carry out in providing services to eligible veterans.
Similarly, prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that in any fiscal year
funding should be available for 1,600 full-time LVER staff and
prescribed how those LVER staff were to be allocated to the states and
assigned to local employment service offices. In addition, Title 38
prescribed 13 functions to be performed by the LVER staff.
[5] The other grant programs and services administered by VETS are the
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, Veterans Workforce Investment
Program, Transition Assistance Program, and National Veterans' Training
Institute.
[6] VETS issued guidance based in part on House bill H.R. 4015, which
contained provisions that VETS believed would be enacted in the new
legislation.
[7] National Veterans' Training Institute is funded as a separate line
item in the VETS budget, limiting VETS' authority to reprogram funds
among its accounts to $500,000, according to a VETS official.
[8] The Transition Assistance Program was established to ease the
transition of separating service members and their spouses from
military service to the civilian workforce. During 3-day workshops
conducted at selected military installations nationwide, participants
learn about job searches, career decision making, current occupational
and labor market conditions, résumé writing, and interviewing
techniques. In fiscal year 2005, VETS allocated $2.5 million to 40
states for the provision of 3,048 workshops.
[9] The ratio of the total number of job-seeking veterans residing in
the state to the total number of job-seeking veterans in all states is
best determined using data collected through the Local Area
Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS),
both of which are administered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The LAUS data are considered to be the most reliable source of the
number of unemployed persons in the civilian labor force, while the CPS
data are considered to be the most reliable source of the number of
veterans in the civilian labor force. BLS officials said that these two
data sources provide the most meaningful and reliable data on veterans
seeking employment at the state level, and that using a 3-year average
to calculate the funding formula will stabilize the effect of annual
fluctuations in the data and, consequently, in the amounts allocated
annually to states.
[10] Under the common measures, Labor plans to require one-stops to
track all participants who walk through the door of a one-stop center
and receive any one-stop service, regardless of which program provides
the service.
[11] GAO, Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess
Reemployment Services to Claimants, GAO-05-413 (Washington, D.C.: June
24, 2005).
[12] The Web site can be found at http://www.hirevetsfirst.gov.
[13] Labor's guidance defines part-time DVOP and LVER positions as half-
time positions.
[14] These states were Alaska, California, Connecticut, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
Rhode Island. While the survey respondent from Montana did not report
information for this question, the state's fiscal year 2005 plan notes
that Montana will not implement an incentive program. Collectively,
these states accounted for about $526,000 (34 percent) of incentive
award funding in fiscal year 2005.
[15] The Urban Institute, Strategies for Implementing Priority of
Service to Veterans in Department of Labor Programs (Washington, D.C.:
2004).
[16] The five Labor agencies are Employment and Training
Administration, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Women's
Bureau, Office of Disability Employment Policy, and Bureau of
International Labor Affairs.
[17] Some states have taken action to coordinate monitoring activities
among programs. Louisiana state workforce officials, for example,
established a two-person monitoring division that reviews all aspects
of veterans' services, including whether they are receiving priority,
regardless of which program serves them. Following the site visit, the
monitoring unit provides immediate training and technical assistance
based on its findings.
[18] Labor's national goal applies to all programs that serve veterans
and is distinct from the JVA requirement to set a national minimum
standard for veterans served by the DVOP and LVER programs.
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:
