Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Preliminary Observations on Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs Gao ID: GAO-05-662T May 12, 2005The Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) administers two programs designed to assist the roughly 700,000 veterans who are unemployed in any given month. These two programs, the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) program, fund employment, training, and job placement services to veterans. In 2002, Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), which redefined the roles of DVOP and LVER staff and required that VETS establish a new performance accountability system. This testimony is based on GAO's ongoing work in this area and focuses on three aspects: (1) the separation of DVOP's and LVER's roles and responsibilities; (2) VETS' performance accountability system for DVOP and LVER staff; and (3) VETS' system for monitoring DVOP and LVER performance.
VETS has established separate roles for DVOP and LVER staff and has provided policy guidance and training to states explaining these changes. Under JVA, states now determine how many DVOP and LVER staff they hire, where to place them within the local workforce areas, and 23 states are planning to use some part-time DVOP staff. There are indications that integrating DVOP and LVER staff into the local workforce offices remains challenging. While VETS has issued guidance on an incentive program to encourage improved performance, state implementation of the program has varied, and 11 states do not plan to participate. VETS has implemented employment measures for DVOP and LVER staff, but a minimum standard that all states must meet for veterans entering employment will not be available before 2007. VETS reported meeting Labor's goal of achieving a 58-percent employment rate for all veteran job seekers during program year 2003, but fell somewhat short of reaching a 60-percent employment goal for disabled veterans. Assessing how well DVOP and LVER programs are serving veterans may continue to be difficult due to ongoing concerns about data reliability. VETS implemented a monitoring system in program year 2004 that relies primarily on state self-assessments of performance in conjunction with onsite reviews. It is unclear, however, how VETS staff at the state, regional, and national levels will use this information consistently to guide or improve the DVOP and LVER programs. VETS is working with other Labor agencies to coordinate monitoring and enforcement efforts.
GAO-05-662T, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations on Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-662T
entitled 'Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Preliminary
Observations on Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs' which was
released on May 12, 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.
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 12, 2005:
Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
Preliminary Observations on Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs:
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-05-662T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-662T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of
Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS) administers two programs designed to assist the roughly 700,000
veterans who are unemployed in any given month. These two programs, the
Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans'
Employment Representative (LVER) program, fund employment, training,
and job placement services to veterans. In 2002, Congress passed the
Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), which redefined the roles of DVOP and LVER
staff and required that VETS establish a new performance accountability
system.
This testimony is based on GAO's ongoing work in this area and focuses
on three aspects: (1) the separation of DVOP's and LVER's roles and
responsibilities; (2) VETS' performance accountability system for DVOP
and LVER staff; and (3) VETS' system for monitoring DVOP and LVER
performance.
What GAO Found:
VETS has established separate roles for DVOP and LVER staff and has
provided policy guidance and training to states explaining these
changes. Under JVA, states now determine how many DVOP and LVER staff
they hire, where to place them within the local workforce areas, and 23
states are planning to use some part-time DVOP staff. There are
indications that integrating DVOP and LVER staff into the local
workforce offices remains challenging. While VETS has issued guidance
on an incentive program to encourage improved performance, state
implementation of the program has varied, and 11 states do not plan to
participate.
VETS has implemented employment measures for DVOP and LVER staff, but a
minimum standard that all states must meet for veterans entering
employment will not be available before 2007. VETS reported meeting
Labor's goal of achieving a 58-percent employment rate for all veteran
job seekers during program year 2003, but fell somewhat short of
reaching a 60-percent employment goal for disabled veterans. Assessing
how well DVOP and LVER programs are serving veterans may continue to be
difficult due to ongoing concerns about data reliability.
VETS implemented a monitoring system in program year 2004 that relies
primarily on state self-assessments of performance in conjunction with
on-site reviews. It is unclear, however, how VETS staff at the state,
regional, and national levels will use this information consistently to
guide or improve the DVOP and LVER programs. VETS is working with other
Labor agencies to coordinate monitoring and enforcement efforts.
Summary of Performance Outcomes for the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program
Year 2003:
Outcome measure;
All veterans and eligible persons: Actual;
All veterans and eligible persons: Goal;
Disabled veterans: Actual;
Disabled veterans: Goal.
Entered employment rate;
All veterans and eligible persons: 58 percent;
All veterans and eligible persons: 58 percent;
Disabled veterans: 53 percent;
Disabled veterans: 60 percent.
Rate of retention in employment at 6 months;
All veterans and eligible persons: 79 percent;
All veterans and eligible persons: 72 percent;
Disabled veterans: 77 percent;
Disabled veterans: 65 percent.
Source: Fiscal year 2004 Performance Budget for VETS and VETS 200
report.
[End of table]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-662T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to talk about our preliminary
observations on the status of implementation of some key provisions of
the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA).[Footnote 1] This legislation was
passed in 2002 to improve various aspects of employment, training, and
placement services provided to veterans. The need for such services is
growing, given that roughly 700,000 veterans are unemployed in any
given month and the number of service members leaving active duty--
estimated by the Department of Labor (Labor) at 200,000 yearly--is
anticipated to rise with more troops returning to civilian life.
Viewing employment services for veterans as a national responsibility,
Congress established the Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS) within Labor to carry out national policy that veterans receive
priority in employment and training opportunities.
Among the programs that VETS administers as part of its
responsibilities to help veterans find employment are the Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representative (LVER) program. Nationwide, there are more than 2,000
DVOP and LVER staff. The DVOP staff are responsible for providing
outreach to veterans needing VETS employment services and in offering
them a variety of intensive services, such as career guidance and
provision of job development contacts. The DVOP staff are to give
priority of service to veterans who are disabled. The LVER staff are
focused on establishing relationships with area employers and on
facilitating employment, training, and placement services for veterans.
The DVOP and LVER staff are also mandatory partners in the one-stop
center system created in 1998 by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
where services provided by numerous employment and training programs
are made available through a single network.
My testimony today addresses the current implementation status of three
aspects of the DVOP and LVER programs that have changed as a result of
JVA: (1) The separation of DVOP's and LVER's roles and
responsibilities; (2) VETS performance accountability system for DVOP
and LVER staff; and (3) VETS system for monitoring DVOP and LVER
performance. My testimony is based on our past reports and ongoing work
for this subcommittee and other congressional committees. We will
report on our ongoing work at the end of the year, as mandated.
We recently held discussions with national and regional VETS officials
and visited two judgmentally selected states, Washington and Colorado.
In Colorado, we interviewed state VETS officials, and visited the
National Veterans' Training Institute (NVTI) where we interviewed NVTI
officials as well as DVOP and LVER staff from 24 states who were
attending training classes. We also met with officials from various
veterans' service organizations and the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies. We started this work in January 2005, and it is
ongoing. Our work is being conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, VETS has established newly defined roles for DVOP and LVER
staff and has provided this information by issuing policy guidance
letters and conducting ongoing training at NVTI. States have been using
the flexibility that these programs now provide, such as being able to
determine how many DVOP and LVER staff are sufficient to meet their
needs, where to place them within the local workforce area, and how to
more effectively use them to serve local veteran job seekers. Almost
half of the states plan to use JVA's authority to assign DVOP staff on
a part-time basis. However, integrating DVOP and LVER staff into one-
stop centers remains a long-standing challenge. While VETS has issued
guidance on the new incentive program to recognize exemplary service
delivery by DVOPs and LVER staff, 11 states do not plan to participate
due to reasons such as state laws or other policies that prevent
individuals from receiving awards.
VETS has implemented employment measures for DVOP and LVER staff.
However, VETS estimated that it will be at least until 2007 before it
has the trend data needed to establish the minimum standard that all
states must meet for the rate at which veterans enter employment. Using
goals negotiated with the states in the interim, VETS reported that
DVOP and LVER programs, as a whole, met Labor's goal of achieving a 58-
percent employment rate for all veteran job seekers during program year
2003, although the programs fell somewhat short in reaching a 60-
percent employment goal for disabled veterans. However, assessing how
well DVOP and LVER programs are serving veterans may continue to be
difficult due to VETS' ongoing concerns about the reliability of
service-related data.
VETS has implemented changes to its system for monitoring state
compliance with the DVOP and LVER programs, and work continues to
determine how best to use the monitoring information to improve program
performance. VETS staff completed their first round of reviewing state
plans and self-assessments of performance in program year 2004. In
addition, VETS staff performed their first round of on-site reviews. It
is unclear, however, how VETS staff at the state, regional, and
national levels will use this information to consistently guide or
improve the DVOP and LVER programs. VETS and the Employment and
Training Administration (ETA) are working together to coordinate
monitoring and enforcement efforts.
Background:
VETS administers national programs to (1) ensure that veterans receive
priority in employment and training opportunities from the employment
service; (2) assist veterans, reservists, and National Guard members in
securing employment; and (3) protect veterans' employment rights and
benefits. VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide
network that includes representation in each of Labor's 10 regions and
staff in each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS
administers the agency's activities through regional administrators and
a VETS director in each state. The state VETS directors are the link
between VETS and the states' employment service system, to whom the
DVOP and LVER staff--as state employees--directly report, and which is
overseen by Labor's ETA. In fiscal year 2005, VETS requested $220.6
million for all its programs, including $162.4 million for the DVOP and
LVER programs. States plan to use this funding to support more than
2,100 DVOP and LVER positions.
In September 2001, we identified some key areas in which VETS could
better serve its clients by providing more flexibility and
accountability in its programs.[Footnote 2] With its passage in
November 2002, JVA amended the legislation that governs the DVOP and
LVER programs by addressing many of the concerns we raised in our prior
work. For example, JVA clarified the roles of DVOP and LVER staff, and
gave states greater flexibility in determining how the staff are used.
Under VETS guidance, the DVOP staff's duties now focus on providing
intensive services--with priority given to disabled veterans--
including assessing the veterans' special needs and skills, developing
a plan of action, and coordinating any needed supportive services, such
as training and job referrals. The DVOP staff also provide outreach
activities to locate candidates who could benefit from intensive
services, such as homeless veterans. As stated in VETS guidance, the
LVER staff's duties now include developing regular contact with
employers to promote employment and training for veterans, developing
relationships with community leaders to further promote veterans'
employment, and promoting and monitoring the participation of veterans
in federally funded programs.
The JVA legislation required states to develop plans that include
details of the specific duties required of the DVOP and LVER positions
and the strategy for their integration into the one-stop system. The
legislation also required the establishment of a comprehensive
performance accountability system to measure performance of the DVOP
and LVER staff, using performance measures consistent with those of
WIA.[Footnote 3] In addition, JVA established an incentive program to
recognize eligible employees for excellence in providing veterans
services and to encourage the improvement of services, with 1 percent
of each state's annual grant allocation to be designated for incentive
funding. In addition, JVA required VETS to establish a minimum standard
for the rate at which veterans enter employment, a standard which all
states are required to meet. The JVA legislation further required
annual performance reviews of veterans' services, which VETS uses to
monitor the DVOP and LVER programs to ensure proper accountability.
VETS Has Implemented Changes to DVOP and LVER Roles and
Responsibilities, but One-Stop Integration Issues Remain:
VETS has taken action to implement the changes to the DVOP and LVER
programs. VETS has issued policy guidance and conducted training on the
DVOP and LVER staff's new roles and responsibilities. In addition,
nearly half the states are taking advantage of JVA's flexibility to
employ part-time DVOP staff. Although VETS has issued guidance on the
performance incentive program to recognize exemplary staff as required
by JVA, states have implemented this program differently, and 11 states
do not plan to implement the incentive program because sometimes it
conflicts with the state's policy if awards are given to individuals.
In addition, integrating DVOP and LVER staff into one-stop centers
continues to be challenging.
VETS Has Provided Guidance and Training to Distinguish DVOP from LVER
Staff Duties and Many States Plan to Use Part-Time DVOP Staff:
Through its policy guidance letters, VETS has clarified the DVOP and
LVER staff's new functions, along with new staffing and reporting
requirements, including the use of part-time positions for DVOPs. In
addition, shortly after JVA was enacted, NVTI held a series of
implementation seminars covering DVOP and LVER staff's new roles and
responsibilities that were attended by representatives from all states.
NVTI also conducts case management training aimed at DVOP staff. At the
end of its first training year in October 2004 following passage of
JVA, NVTI reported training 282 DVOPs and estimated that an additional
144 would be trained each year in the future. Similarly, NVTI conducts
employer outreach training focused on LVERs. Because this class is new,
NVTI estimates that it will train 264 LVERs by October 2005, and
projects that an additional 240 LVERs would be trained each year.
One of the key changes in the new law gives states the flexibility to
establish part-time DVOP and LVER positions, though this was already
permitted to some extent for LVERs. According to their fiscal year 2005
state plans, 23 states planned to use the new flexibility under JVA to
employ both full-and part-time DVOPs, while 34 states planned to use
the long-standing authority to employ both full-and part-time LVERs. As
shown in table 1, part-time DVOP positions would comprise about 18
percent of the total DVOP staff and about 44 percent of the total LVER
staff.
Table 1: Full-Time and Part-Time DVOP and LVER Positions, Fiscal Year
2005:
Type of position: Full-time;
Total DVOP staff (percentage): 1,139 (82 percent);
Total LVER staff (percentage): 871 (56 percent).
Type of position: Half-time;
Total DVOP staff (percentage): 241 (18 percent);
Total LVER staff (percentage): 675 (44 percent).
Type of position: Total;
Total DVOP staff (percentage): 1,380 (100 percent);
Total LVER staff (percentage): 1,522 (100 percent).
Source: GAO analysis of state plans.
Note: Figures include the District of Columbia and exclude Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands.
[End of table]
Some states plan to use part-time DVOPs and LVERs extensively. For
example, two states, Maine and Washington, planned to use part-time
LVERs exclusively. In addition, South Dakota plans on having 87 percent
of its DVOPs be part-time, and Vermont plans to have 91 percent of
LVERs be part-time. By contrast, in New Jersey, only 5 percent of DVOPs
are to be part-time and, in Indiana, 6 percent of LVERs are to be part-
time.
Not All States Plan to Use Incentive Awards:
VETS has implemented JVA's requirement to establish a performance
incentive awards program by issuing policy guidance that lays out
criteria and monetary as well as nonmonetary awards for states to
consider in developing an awards program. According to fiscal year 2005
state plans, 11 states did not plan to use the incentive program due to
reasons such as conflicts with state law or other policies if the
awards are given to individuals. The remaining 40 states planned to
implement the incentive program in various ways. For example, in one
state, two DVOPs were awarded a one-time maximum award of $1,000. In
another state, however, top performing DVOP and LVER staff were given a
one-time cash award for as little as $16. Regardless of their current
approach to implementing incentives, some VETS officials said they
would like to see award eligibility criteria expanded beyond
individuals to include entire units.
Challenges Continue with Integrating DVOP and LVER Staff into One-Stop
Centers:
Labor officials acknowledge that integration of DVOP and LVER staff
into the one-stop centers has been a persistent challenge. The extent
that implementing changes under JVA will assist in breaking down the
barriers and entrenched cultures that have precluded integration in the
one-stop centers will likely take years. According to the DVOP and LVER
staff we interviewed, integration still varied widely among local
areas, depending on the level of support provided by the one-stop
manager for the DVOP and LVER programs. For example, one DVOP staff
told us that the veterans program is highly integrated with the WIA
program in her local one-stop, with both sharing case management
responsibilities. In addition, she participates in regular meetings
with the one-stop partners and attributed this cohesion to the
commitment by her one-stop manager to work cooperatively with all the
partners. In contrast, a DVOP from another state told us that he was
assigned to tasks that prevented him from serving as many veterans as
he would have liked.
In cases where there was poor integration, several reasons were cited
by DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed from various states. One reason
was that other one-stop staff were not educated or trained on serving
veterans. An NVTI official told us that the institute has provided
training to states that have requested it, but was concerned that the
states that were struggling with providing veterans' services were the
very ones that did not request training. Other reasons included the
perception among DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed that there is
little coordination between VETS and ETA to ensure integration among
all partner programs, adopt uniform definitions of eligible veterans,
and consistently give veterans priority of service regardless of
program.[Footnote 4]
New Performance System Implemented for DVOPs and LVERs, but Too Early
to Link Changes to Veterans' Employment Outcomes:
VETS has implemented some JVA changes to the accountability system
related to the measures used for assessing DVOP and LVER performance,
but it estimates that it will be at least 2007 before it can implement
a minimum standard for veterans entering employment that all states
will be expected to meet. Until the standard becomes available, VETS
has used historically based outcomes in negotiating performance goals
with states. In addition, Labor has established an entered-employment
goal of 58 percent for veterans served through the DVOP and LVER
programs. While VETS reported that the DVOP and LVER programs met
Labor's program year 2003 goals for some measures, concerns about data
reliability remain, preventing an accurate assessment of how well DVOP
and LVER staff are performing.
Performance Measures Implemented, but More Time Needed to Establish
Minimum Standard:
The performance measurement system for the DVOP and LVER programs has
been in transition over the last several years. Prior to JVA,
performance measures placed more emphasis on process-oriented measures-
-measures that simply tracked services provided to veterans, not on the
employment outcomes veterans achieved. In addition, states used
different data sources to report employment-related outcomes, resulting
in performance that was not comparable across states. According to VETS
officials, VETS adopted performance measures, beginning July 1, 2003,
that are consistent with those of WIA, but has not yet specified when
it will implement a system for weighting the measures to provide
special consideration for such groups as disabled veterans, in
accordance with JVA's requirements. Another fundamental change was the
use of Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records to identify veterans
who get jobs rather than the use of time-consuming follow-up
procedures. The current performance standards for the DVOP and LVER
programs apply to various veterans populations, including disabled
veterans. Three measures are based on WIA: (1) veterans that entered
employment; (2) retention in employment at 6 months; and (3) job seeker
satisfaction. In addition, VETS tracks entered employment following
receipt of staff-assisted services and entered employment following
receipt of case management.[Footnote 5]
VETS officials told us, however, that the measures will change again on
July 1, 2005, when VETS will adopt the Office of Management and
Budget's new common measures.[Footnote 6] VETS will retain several
existing measures that track employment following services provided by
DVOP and LVER staff. While the new common measures afford some
advantages over existing measures, the frequent shifts in focus have
made it difficult to collect comparable data that can be used to
establish a pattern of performance for the DVOP and LVER programs and
compare outcomes across different time periods. As such, VETS
anticipates that it will take at least until 2007 to collect the
necessary trend data to establish the minimum standard for the entered-
employment rate that all states will be expected to meet. In the
interim, states are required to meet performance goals that they
negotiate annually with VETS based on historic outcome levels. For
example, according to VETS, states' program year 2004 negotiated goals
for entered employment ranged from 46 percent to 67 percent for
veterans, and from 41 percent to 65 percent for disabled veterans.
VETS Reports Meeting Goals, but Data Reliability Concerns Remain:
Nationwide, VETS reported that the DVOP and LVER programs met Labor's
goals for the entered employment rate (58 percent) for all eligible
veterans in program year 2003, while they fell short of their 60-
percent target entered employment rate for disabled veterans (see table
2). Similarly, VETS reported that the programs exceeded goals for the
rate at which veterans retained employment 6 months later.
Table 2: Summary of Performance Outcomes for DVOP and LVER Programs,
Program Year 2003:
Outcome measure: Entered employment rate;
All veterans and eligible persons: Actual: 58 percent;
All veterans and eligible persons: Goal: 58 percent;
Disabled veterans: Actual: 53 percent;
Disabled veterans: Goal: 60 percent.
Outcome measure: Rate of retention in employment at 6 months;
All veterans and eligible persons: Actual: 79 percent;
All veterans and eligible persons: Goal: 72 percent;
Disabled veterans: Actual: 77 percent;
Disabled veterans: Goal: 65 percent.
Source: Fiscal year 2004 Performance Budget for VETS and VETS 200
report.
[End of table]
Even after the new measures will be adopted, VETS officials remain
concerned about the reliability of data used to assess performance.
VETS officials attribute their concerns about service-related data
reliability to DVOP and LVER staff not understanding the new
definitions of the performance measures, lacking training on entering
data into an automated system, inconsistent registration policies, or
simply inputting erroneous data. In addition, VETS officials told us
that some states have known data reliability issues with their
management information systems. While Labor has established data
validation procedures, the reliability of performance data is an issue
that is not fully addressed by Labor's current validation procedures.
For example, all states must certify that their data are correct using
validation software that cross-checks the totals they report to VETS.
However, validation does not extend to the case file level to ensure
that DVOP and LVER staff accurately collect and report data at the
point of service delivery. In comparing the reliability of data on
services to those on employment outcomes, VETS officials believe that
outcome data are more reliable because they are based on Unemployment
Insurance (UI) wage records. However, as we have noted in past work,
while UI wage records are reliable, they suffer from significant time
lags, resulting in at least an approximately 1½-year wait to obtain
information on outcomes.[Footnote 7]
Monitoring Systems Evolving to Strengthen Program Accountability:
In response to JVA's requirement to monitor the DVOP and LVER programs,
VETS has shifted greater responsibility for monitoring program
performance to the state level, and VETS' monitoring role continues to
evolve from enforcer to partner in achieving state goals. VETS staff
completed their first review of annual state self-assessments in
program year 2004 and have completed their first round of site visits
to a random sample of local offices. However, the extent that this new
approach to monitoring DVOP and LVER performance strengthens program
accountability may require several years of state and VETS experience
collecting, reporting, and using information to improve services to
veterans.
First Round of Reviews Completed:
Beginning in program year 2004, VETS began reviewing all the state
plans for compliance with program requirements and, for any
deficiencies noted during the review, required states to correct the
relevant section of the plan. In addition, VETS requires states to
submit annual self-assessments to identify best practices, ensure the
approved state plan is being effectively implemented, determine the
state's progress toward meeting its performance goals, and identify
areas for technical assistance and training.
Besides conducting reviews of the state plans and self-assessments,
VETS also conducts annual on-site monitoring reviews of 20 percent of
local offices within each state, and all local offices must be visited
at least once in 5 years. While we do not know how many offices have
DVOP or LVER staff, there are an estimated 1,900 comprehensive one-stop
centers and about 1,600 affiliate one-stop centers around the nation.
The on-site reviews include interviewing personnel who are involved in
providing services to veterans, observing the flow of customers in the
lobby, and reviewing local guidance and plans.
VETS Still Working to Determine How Best to Use Monitoring Information:
Now that VETS has completed its first year under the new performance
accountability system, it is unclear how it will use its monitoring
results to improve DVOP and LVER program performance. At the national
level, VETS has developed a system to track corrective actions needed
in states' plans, but has not yet developed a strategy to best meld
performance information from its other monitoring efforts to improve
program performance at the local, state, and regional levels. For
example, VETS officials in two states we visited told us that they use
the site visit results to identify local offices needing targeted
technical assistance. However, one state VETS official told us that
because local offices varied considerably in their performance, he was
uncertain whether the 20-percent sample used for site visits would
accurately capture areas most in need of technical assistance. While
information on DVOP and LVER performance is also available through
local office reporting, VETS officials have not provided a consistent
methodology to incorporate and analyze relative performance among the
local offices, states, and regional offices. VETS and ETA continue to
work on issues related to sharing the results of monitoring efforts,
coordinating corrective actions, and taking a joint approach to
enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Our remaining work will examine these and other issues in greater depth
to meet our mandated reporting date at the end of the year.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Key contributors to this testimony were Lacinda Ayers,
Jeremy Cox, Meeta Engle, Emily Pickrell, and Stanley Stenersen.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
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] Pub. L. No. 107-288 (2002).
[2] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and
Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans, GAO-01-928
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2001).
[3] The WIA performance measures include entered employment, retention
at 6 months, and customer satisfaction.
[4] ETA has issued guidance on implementing JVA's requirement to
provide priority of service to veterans eligible veterans as it relates
to 20 Labor-funded programs that are affected by the requirement. See
U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 5-
03, (Washington, D.C.: 2003). ETA officials told us that they also plan
to raise awareness of priority of service through such efforts as
promotion campaigns at one-stop centers.
[5] This measure applies only to the DVOP program.
[6] The Office of Management and Budget established a set of common
measures to be applied to all federal employment and training programs
administered by the departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human
Services, Veterans Affairs, Interior, and Housing and Urban
Development. This set of measures will allow Labor to sum outcomes
across all its programs and provide a more uniform picture of outcomes
achieved. Three common measures apply to programs serving adults: (1)
entered employment; (2) employment retention; and (3) earnings
increase. Although program efficiency was one of the measures in
earlier ETA guidance, the policy has been revised and states will no
longer be required to report on this measure. Instead, ETA will use
existing program management data to report program efficiency at a
national level.
[7] GAO, 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).
