Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Greater Accountability and Other Labor Actions Needed to Better Serve Veterans
Gao ID: GAO-06-357T February 2, 2006
The number of service members leaving active duty is likely to increase by 200,000 yearly, according to the Department of Labor. To improve employment and training services for veterans and to encourage employers to hire them, Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act in 2002, which reformed Labor's Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) program. This testimony summarizes GAO's recent review of progress implementing the act, including the development of new staff roles and responsibilities, incentive awards, and performance accountability system. GAO examined (1) actions taken to improve performance and accountability since the law's enactment and any associated challenges, (2) whether available data indicate that such action has resulted in improved employment outcomes for veterans, and (3) factors affecting program oversight an accountability.
Labor implemented most reforms under the Jobs for Veterans' Act (JVA) to improve the DVOP and LVER programs within the first 2 years of its enactment. However, it has not yet fully implemented measures to improve state accountability for these programs. Specifically, Labor reports that states will not be held accountable to the same standard for veterans' employment until 2007. States also report substantial progress implementing the law, but integrating veterans' staff with other one-stop staff remains challenging in some local areas. In addition, about one-third of the states did not establish incentive programs for their workforce personnel because state 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. For example, they reported that services provided to disabled veterans have improved. They also credited the greater availability of case management and outreach to new employers for much of the improvement in employment outcomes under JVA. Aside from the law's influence, state administrators 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.
GAO-06-357T, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Greater Accountability and Other Labor Actions Needed to Better Serve Veterans
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-357T
entitled 'Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Greater
Accountability and Other Labor Actions Needed to Better Serve Veterans'
which was released on February 2, 2006.
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 Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United States
Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Thursday, February 2, 2006:
Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
Greater Accountability and Other Labor Actions Needed to Better Serve
Veterans:
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-06-357T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-357T, a testimony before the Senate Committee on
Veterans‘ Affairs:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The number of service members leaving active duty is likely to increase
by 200,000 yearly, according to the Department of Labor. To improve
employment and training services for veterans and to encourage
employers to hire them, Congress passed the Jobs for Veterans Act in
2002, which reformed Labor‘s Disabled Veterans‘ Outreach Program (DVOP)
and Local Veterans‘ Employment Representative (LVER) program. This
testimony summarizes GAO‘s recent review of progress implementing the
act, including the development of new staff roles and responsibilities,
incentive awards, and performance accountability system. GAO examined
(1) actions taken to improve performance and accountability since the
law‘s enactment and any associated challenges, (2) whether available
data indicate that such action has resulted in improved employment
outcomes for veterans, and (3) factors affecting program oversight an
accountability.
What GAO Found:
Labor implemented most reforms under the Jobs for Veterans‘ Act (JVA)
to improve the DVOP and LVER programs within the first 2 years of its
enactment. However, it has not yet fully implemented measures to
improve state accountability for these programs. Specifically, Labor
reports that states will not be held accountable to the same standard
for veterans‘ employment until 2007. States also report substantial
progress implementing the law, but integrating veterans‘ staff with
other one-stop staff remains challenging in some local areas. In
addition, about one-third of the states did not establish incentive
programs for their workforce personnel because state 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.
For example, they reported that services provided to disabled veterans
have improved. They also credited the greater availability of case
management and outreach to new employers for much of the improvement in
employment outcomes under JVA. Aside from the law‘s influence, state
administrators 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‘s report (GAO-06-176) included recommendations that Labor provide
clear guidance to integrate veterans‘ staff into the one-stops, foster
state use of incentives, and that Labor‘s program offices coordinate
their oversight of JVA provisions, and that Labor use monitoring
results to develop program improvements. Labor agreed with GAO‘s
recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-357T.
To view the full product, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202) 512-7215 or
nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to be here today to present the findings of our recent
report on how the Department of Labor (Labor) and states have
implemented some key provisions of the Jobs for Veterans Act
(JVA).[Footnote 1] Congress passed JVA in 2002 not only to improve
employment and training services for unemployed veterans, but also to
encourage employers to hire them. The ability of veterans to quickly
obtain quality service and employment has always been important, but
will become even more so as the number of service members leaving
active duty is likely to increase by 200,000 yearly, according to
Labor.
The act introduced several reforms to two of Labor's primary veterans'
employment assistance programs--the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program
(DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER)
program--administered by the Veterans' Employment and Training Service
(VETS). Under the act, DVOP staff are to focus on finding and serving
veterans who need services to become job ready, including case
management services for developing job skills. LVER staff are to focus
on developing relationships with employers to encourage them to hire
veterans. In addition, the act called for DVOP and LVER staff to be
integrated with other staff providing employment and training services
within the one-stop delivery system established in 1998 under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and established an incentive program to
reward staff for outstanding service to veterans. To determine how well
these programs were working to assist veterans across states, the act
also required Labor to establish a performance accountability system as
well as a national minimum standard--or threshold--that states must
meet for veterans' employment.
GAO previously testified on our preliminary observations on the status
of implementation of these key provisions of JVA.[Footnote 2] My
testimony today will present the findings of our completed work related
to the JVA reforms of the DVOP and LVER programs. Specifically, I will
address (1) action taken to improve performance and accountability
since the enactment of JVA in 2002 and any associated challenges; (2)
whether available data reflect that such action has resulted in
improved employment outcomes for veterans; and (3) factors affecting
program oversight and accountability.
In summary, our work shows that Labor and most states took action to
implement JVA reforms for improving the DVOP and LVER programs within
the first two years of the new legislation. However, our work also
highlights several areas where Labor agencies should collaborate and
take additional action to enhance outcomes of these reforms,
particularly in the area of improving state oversight and
accountability. To this end, our December 2005 report recommended that
Labor agencies work together to provide states and local areas with
strategies to address the long-standing challenge they have faced in
integrating veterans' staff into their service delivery system. For
those states with an incentive award system, the wide variation in
methodology for awarding incentives as well as the mixed opinions on
the program's success suggests that states could benefit from Labor
presentation of methodologies that it considers successful and we
recommended that Labor share these best practices. Finally, while
states have appreciated the flexibility JVA provides them in serving
veterans, such flexibility underscores the need for greater
accountability to ensure that programs are on the right track in
serving clients. However, accountability can be hindered and reforms
implemented inconsistently when local level information is not always
available, different Labor agencies do not coordinate their oversight
efforts, and Labor does not use monitoring results to improve program
performance. We therefore recommended that Labor strategically use
monitoring results to target guidance and technical assistance to
states and local areas most in need of improved performance. Labor
generally agreed with our recommendations.
Our review was based on a survey of VETS directors as well as a survey
of state workforce administrators in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. We also visited five states--California, Florida, Louisiana,
Ohio, and Washington--where we interviewed VETS and state workforce
officials, including local office managers and DVOP and LVER staff. In
addition, we visited the National Veterans' Training Institute in
Denver, Colorado, where we interviewed training officials and veterans'
staff from 24 states who were attending training classes. Finally, we
held discussions with Labor agency officials and contacted various
veterans' service organizations and the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies.
Background:
JVA 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 under the DVOP and LVER programs. (See table 1.) The act also
required increased veterans' access to electronic services as well as
to different types of Labor employment and training programs by
requiring them to give veterans priority in receiving their services.
In addition, it required federal contractors to advertise job openings
at the appropriate employment service delivery system and report on
their veteran hiring practices.
Table 1: Comparison of Selected Provisions under Title 38 and JVA:
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.
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.
Source: GAO analysis of Title 38 and JVA legislation.
[End of table]
Within Labor, VETS has primary 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. VETS administers the agency's activities through
representatives in each of Labor's six regional offices and within each
state. The state directors are the link between VETS and each state's
employment service system that is overseen by the ETA. The DVOP and
LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS, are part of the state's
public employment service system.
Employment services fall under the purview of ETA, which administers
the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services program within each state,
providing a national system of public employment services to any
individual seeking employment who is authorized to work in the United
States. 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.
Labor and States Acted to Implement Program Reforms, but Accountability
Challenges Remain:
Labor and states have taken action to implement most JVA provisions to
reform veterans' services since the law was enacted in November 2002,
but challenges remain particularly in implementing reforms to improve
accountability for the DVOP and LVER programs. Labor issued guidance
clarifying the new roles and responsibilities for veterans' staff and
allocated funding to states for an incentive program. Labor has also
established performance measures aligned with state workforce systems
under WIA as required by JVA. However, Labor reports that states will
not be held accountable to a common national standard for veterans'
employment until 2007. (See table 2.) States also report good progress
in implementing provisions, but challenges remain in some local areas
in terms of integrating veterans' staff with other employment services
staff in local workforce centers. Many states also have not implemented
an incentive program as provided in JVA for recognizing quality
services to veterans.
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 establishing
new performance measures in June 2003, followed by guidance in May 2004
on negotiating performance measures with states;
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.
First full fiscal year following JVA[B]:
Provision: Incentive awards;
Labor's completed actions: VETS allocated incentive award funds to
states beginning in fiscal year 2004;
Labor's planned actions: None.
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, and while the majority of state
workforce administrators reported that these staff had transitioned to
a greater focus on intensive services for veterans and employer
outreach as required by JVA, challenges remained in the areas of
training and integrating staff in some one-stop offices. VETS began
issuing guidance to transition staff to their new roles in 2002, and a
training program soon followed in 2003. Both Labor's formal written
guidance and technical assistance was well-received, with almost three-
quarters of the 50 state workforce officials reporting on our survey
that the quality was good or excellent in facilitating implementation
of new staff duties.
VETS officials cited challenges, however, in meeting all training needs
for veterans' staff informing them of their new roles and
responsibilities under the act. While Labor's training institute
continues to conduct and fund training, it estimated that the current
funding would cover training for only about 16 percent of all veterans'
staff each year, while annual staff turnover was averaging about 18
percent. In terms of staff integration, Labor officials said that
integrating staff into the one-stop offices has been a persistent
challenge and the DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed cited a wide
variation of integration in local areas. Reasons these staff cited for
poor integration included a lack of support by the local office
manager, the lack of education and training for other one-stop staff
members on serving veterans, and only fair to poor quality of Labor's
guidance and technical assistance to states in how to integrate
veterans' staff into the local one-stop offices.
Incentive Awards Program:
VETS issued guidance in time to establish an incentive program in the
first fiscal year after JVA, and 32 of the 50 state workforce
administrators we surveyed reported implementing the program. State
workforce officials in 17 states that did not implement the program
cited various reasons. California, for example, cited that state law
prohibited monetary or other gifts to employees for performing their
duties. Idaho cited potential morale problems among one-stop staff that
have limited opportunities to serve veterans. Four other states cited
that the awards were incompatible with the states' collective
bargaining agreements. VETS officials said that some states had been
more successful than others in designing their awards system and state
opinions were mixed on the extent that the incentive programs resulted
in improved services. Administrators in 16 states with award programs
in place reported that their program had a positive effect on improving
or modernizing veterans' services. On the other hand, administrators in
15 other states either said that their incentive program had no effect
(7 states) or that it was too early to say (8 states).
Performance Accountability:
Labor has taken action to establish a new accountability system as
required by JVA, but reports that more time is needed under the new
system before it can hold all states accountable to the same standard
for veterans' employment. As required by the act, Labor established
some new performance measures for the DVOP and LVER grant programs in
2003 consistent with state performance measures under WIA. VETS
officials told us they made additional modifications to the performance
accountability system when they adopted the Office of Management and
Budget's new common performance measures in July 2005. As these new
systems were put in place, VETS officials said they also changed the
method they use to calculate the entered employment measure and collect
source data. However, VETS anticipates it will need at least 3 years
under these measures--until 2007--to collect comparable trend data
needed to establish the national performance standard holding all
states accountable to the same minimum goal for the rate veterans enter
employment.
State Officials Reported that JVA Reforms Improved Veterans' Services
and Employment Outcomes:
While data are not available to link the JVA reforms to changes in
veterans' services and employment outcomes, most state workforce
administrators we surveyed believed that the reforms have improved the
quality of services to veterans, and have improved their employment
outcomes. Overall, 33 of the 50 state workforce administrators reported
that veterans' employment services have improved in their respective
states since the law's enactment. Among six different services we asked
about, administrators most often reported that DVOP staff were spending
more time on case management since JVA, although somewhat fewer states
reported that services to disabled veterans had similarly improved.
(See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Improvements in Services to Veterans since JVA Was Enacted:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Workforce administrators in 33 states also reported improvement in
veterans' employment results. 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. Other than 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. (See fig. 2.)
Table 3: Factors That Assisted Veterans in Obtaining Employment:
In terms of barriers to employment, state administrators reported that
federal contractor failure to list job openings at the local one-stop
centers was a factor under most likely to delay or prevent some
employment. Other factors also presented obstacles to employment, the
most frequent one being a poor local job market. This factor was cited
nearly twice more often as other factors, such as non-transferability
of skills or employer reluctance to hire veterans with National Guard
or Reserve commitments. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 2: Factors That Delayed or Prevented Veterans from Obtaining
Employment:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Program Accountability Weakened by Absence of Local Data and Lack of
Coordinated Oversight:
Labor oversight and accountability for the DVOP and LVER programs has
been affected by the lack of data available from local workforce
offices in some states, as well as the lack of coordination among Labor
agencies in monitoring and sharing information gathered on program
performance. While state VETS directors responding to our survey most
often reported that their monitoring role under JVA has had a positive
effect on local accountability, 19 directors reported their monitoring
role either had no effect or a negative effect. Our survey showed two
main reasons for the lack of a stronger effect.
Lack of Local Level Data. In our survey, state VETS directors reported
that performance data from local offices are not available in many
states, limiting federal oversight and weakening local level
accountability. State VETS directors reported in our survey that among
four different tools used to monitor local office performance, the most
beneficial were analysis and use of data captured in states'
performance reports, along with on-site reviews of local offices. Under
JVA, states took on greater responsibility for assessing their own
performance, and VETS modified its monitoring practices in response by
extending the time between site visits to local offices from 1 year to
5 years. VETS directors in 21 states, however, noted that data were not
available to monitor performance of local offices, and in these states,
federal oversight may be limited to the on-site monitoring visits by
VETS directors required once every 5 years.
Lack of Coordinated Oversight. While Labor agencies are jointly
responsible for monitoring employment and training services, little or
no effort has been made to coordinate oversight or use the monitoring
results to target assistance to states and localities that are most in
need. For example, while VETS is responsible for monitoring performance
of the DVOP and LVER programs, ETA oversees other workforce programs
that serve veterans as well as nonveterans, such as WIA and Wagner-
Peyser Employment Services. However, the two agencies do not generally
coordinate their monitoring activities or share the results. Only five
state VETS directors reported that they met with ETA officials to share
monitoring results and take joint action to address problems.
Labor also lacks a strategy for using the monitoring information it
gathers to improve performance across states and local areas. 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 performance goals. For
example, in program years 2004 and 2005, states' negotiated goals for
the rate at which veterans entered employment ranged from 38 to 65
percent, while Labor's national employment goal for veterans was 58
percent.[Footnote 3] Although more than half of the state goals fell
short of Labor's national target, VETS has not been proactive in
determining why certain states are falling behind and in targeting them
for assistance.
Recommendations:
Our report recommended that the Secretary of Labor provide clear
guidance to integrate veterans' staff into the one-stops and foster
state use of incentives. We also recommended that Labor's program
offices coordinate their oversight of JVA provisions, and that Labor
use monitoring results to develop program improvements. Labor agreed
with our recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have
at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Lacinda Ayers, Meeta Engle, and Stan Stenersen were key
contributors to this testimony.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Actions Needed to
Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to Veterans'
Employment Services. GAO-06-176. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 2005.
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: Labor Actions
Needed to Improve Accountability and Help States Implement Reforms to
Veterans' Employment Services, GAO-06-176 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 30,
2005).
[2] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Preliminary
Observations on Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs, GAO-05-662T
(Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2005).
[3] 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 the DVOP and LVER programs.