VA Student Financial Aid
Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approval Activities Gao ID: GAO-07-775T April 19, 2007In fiscal year 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) paid $19 million to state approving agencies (SAA) to assess whether schools and training programs are of sufficient quality for veterans to receive VA education assistance benefits when attending them. The Departments of Education and Labor also assess education and training programs for various purposes. This testimony describes (1) changes that have occurred in state approving agencies' duties and functions since 1995, (2) the extent to which the SAA approval process overlaps with efforts by the Departments of Education and Labor, and (3) the additional value that SAA approval activities bring to VA education benefit programs. This testimony is based on a March 2007 report (GAO-07-384).
Since 1995, legislative changes effective in 2001 created additional responsibilities for SAAs, including promoting the development of apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, providing outreach services, and approving tests for occupational licensing. From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, SAA funding increased from $13 million to $19 million to expand services and support the additional responsibilities. However, funding is scheduled to decrease beginning in fiscal year 2008. Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have also been approved by Education or Labor, and VA has taken few steps to coordinate approval activities with these agencies. More than two-thirds of all programs approved by SAAs are offered by institutions that have been certified by Education. Many apprenticeship programs approved by SAAs have also been approved by Labor, although apprenticeship programs make up less than 2 percent of all programs approved by SAAs. Similar categories of approval standards, such as student achievement, exist across agencies, but the specific standards within each category vary and the full extent of the overlap is unknown. For example, VA requires schools to give appropriate credit for prior learning while Education does not have such a requirement. Despite the overlap in approved programs and standards, VA and SAAs have made limited efforts to coordinate approval activities with other federal agencies. VA does not require SAAs to collect information on the amount of resources they spend on specific approval activities; therefore, information is not available to determine the amount of resources spent on SAA duties and functions, including those that may overlap with those of other agencies. SAAs reportedly add value to the approval process for education and training programs, but the lack of outcome-oriented performance measures makes it difficult to assess the significance of their efforts. Areas of added value include (1) a focus on student services for veterans and on the integrity of VA benefits, (2) more frequent on-site monitoring of education and training programs than provided by Education or Labor, and (3) assessments and approval of a small number of programs that are not reviewed by other agencies. States, schools, and apprenticeship officials we spoke with reported that without SAAs, the quality of education for veterans would not change. However, veterans' receipt of benefits could be delayed and the time required to complete their education and training programs could increase. Despite areas of apparent added value, it is difficult to fully assess the significance of SAA efforts. VA measures some outputs, such as the number of supervisory visits SAAs conduct, but it does not have outcome-oriented performance measures, such as the amount of benefit adjustments resulting from SAAs' reviews, to evaluate the overall effectiveness of SAAs.
GAO-07-775T, VA Student Financial Aid: Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approval Activities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-775T
entitled 'VA Student Financial Aid: Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in
Approval Activities' which was released on April 19, 2007.
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, April 19, 2007:
VA Student Financial Aid:
Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approval Activities:
Statement of George A. Scott, Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
GAO-07-775T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-775T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans‘ Affairs, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In fiscal year 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) paid $19
million to state approving agencies (SAA) to assess whether schools and
training programs are of sufficient quality for veterans to receive VA
education assistance benefits when attending them. The Departments of
Education and Labor also assess education and training programs for
various purposes. This testimony describes (1) changes that have
occurred in state approving agencies‘ duties and functions since 1995,
(2) the extent to which the SAA approval process overlaps with efforts
by the Departments of Education and Labor, and (3) the additional value
that SAA approval activities bring to VA education benefit programs.
This testimony is based on a March 2007 report (GAO-07-384).
What GAO Found:
Since 1995, legislative changes effective in 2001 created additional
responsibilities for SAAs, including promoting the development of
apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, providing outreach
services, and approving tests for occupational licensing. From fiscal
years 2003 to 2006, SAA funding increased from $13 million to $19
million to expand services and support the additional responsibilities.
However, funding is scheduled to decrease beginning in fiscal year
2008.
Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have also been
approved by Education or Labor, and VA has taken few steps to
coordinate approval activities with these agencies. More than two-
thirds of all programs approved by SAAs are offered by institutions
that have been certified by Education. Many apprenticeship programs
approved by SAAs have also been approved by Labor, although
apprenticeship programs make up less than 2 percent of all programs
approved by SAAs. Similar categories of approval standards, such as
student achievement, exist across agencies, but the specific standards
within each category vary and the full extent of the overlap is
unknown. For example, VA requires schools to give appropriate credit
for prior learning while Education does not have such a requirement.
Despite the overlap in approved programs and standards, VA and SAAs
have made limited efforts to coordinate approval activities with other
federal agencies. VA does not require SAAs to collect information on
the amount of resources they spend on specific approval activities;
therefore, information is not available to determine the amount of
resources spent on SAA duties and functions, including those that may
overlap with those of other agencies.
SAAs reportedly add value to the approval process for education and
training programs, but the lack of outcome-oriented performance
measures makes it difficult to assess the significance of their
efforts. Areas of added value include (1) a focus on student services
for veterans and on the integrity of VA benefits, (2) more frequent on-
site monitoring of education and training programs than provided by
Education or Labor, and (3) assessments and approval of a small number
of programs that are not reviewed by other agencies. States, schools,
and apprenticeship officials we spoke with reported that without SAAs,
the quality of education for veterans would not change. However,
veterans‘ receipt of benefits could be delayed and the time required to
complete their education and training programs could increase. Despite
areas of apparent added value, it is difficult to fully assess the
significance of SAA efforts. VA measures some outputs, such as the
number of supervisory visits SAAs conduct, but it does not have outcome-
oriented performance measures, such as the amount of benefit
adjustments resulting from SAAs‘ reviews, to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of SAAs.
What GAO Recommends:
We recommended that VA take steps to monitor SAA spending and
duplication of efforts with other agencies and that VA establish
outcome-oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of
SAA efforts. VA agreed with our recommendations and stated that it will
take actions to address them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-775T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-
7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to present information from our March
2007 report on state approving agencies (SAA).[Footnote 1] In fiscal
year 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) paid approximately
$2.1 billion in education assistance benefits to more than 470,000
beneficiaries and about $19 million to state approving agencies to
assess whether schools and training programs offer education of
sufficient quality for veterans to receive VA education assistance
benefits when attending them. Qualified individuals--veterans, service
persons, reservists, and certain spouses and dependents--receive
benefits through a number of education assistance programs for the
pursuit of various types of programs, such as a degree program,
vocational program, apprenticeship, or on-the-job training. In general,
these programs must be approved by an SAA in order for qualified
individuals to receive VA education assistance benefits. Under
contracts with VA, SAAs ensure that education and training programs
meet VA standards through a variety of approval activities, such as
evaluating course quality, assessing school financial stability, and
monitoring student progress.
The Departments of Education (Education) and Labor (Labor) also assess
education and training programs for various purposes, primarily for
awarding student aid and providing apprenticeship assistance. These
assessments are based, in part, on evaluations against standards set by
laws and regulations, such as those applicable to accrediting agencies.
In 2006, under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, Education provided
nearly $77 billion in student aid in the form of both grants and loans.
Education assesses and certifies postsecondary institutions for
participation in Title IV programs through various oversight functions
to ensure that these schools meet federal administrative and financial
requirements and that they are accredited and licensed. Similarly,
under the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937, Labor is authorized to
formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards to safeguard
the welfare of apprentices. To ensure programs comply with federal
standards, Labor directly registers and oversees apprenticeship
programs in less than half of the states and has given state
apprenticeship agencies or councils in the remaining states such
authority over their own programs.
Given each agency's role, the potential of duplicative efforts among
federal agencies has been a congressional concern. In 1995, GAO
reported on this matter and concluded that there was a substantial
amount of overlap between the efforts of SAAs and the other federal
agencies.[Footnote 2] My testimony today is based on information from
our recent report and will focus on (1) changes that have occurred in
state approving agencies' duties and functions since 1995, (2) the
extent to which the SAA approval process overlaps with efforts by the
Departments of Education and Labor, and (3) the additional value that
SAA approval activities bring to VA education benefit programs.
In summary, we found that:
* Since 1995, legislative changes effective in 2001 created additional
responsibilities for SAAs, including promoting the development of
apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, providing outreach
services, and approving tests for occupational licensing.[Footnote 3]
From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, SAA funding increased from $13 million
to $19 million to expand services and support the additional
responsibilities. However, funding is scheduled to decrease beginning
in fiscal year 2008.
* Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have also been
approved by Education or Labor, and VA and SAAs have taken few steps to
coordinate approval activities with these agencies. In addition,
information is not available to determine the amount of resources spent
on SAA duties and functions, including those that may overlap with
other agencies and programs.
* SAAs reportedly add value to the approval process for education and
training programs through (1) a focus on student services for veterans
and on the integrity of VA benefits, (2) more frequent on-site
monitoring of education and training programs than provided by
Education or Labor, and (3) assessments and approval of a small number
of programs that are not reviewed by other agencies. However, VA's lack
of outcome-oriented performance measures for evaluating SAAs makes it
difficult to assess the significance of these efforts.
To help ensure that federal dollars are spent efficiently and
effectively, our report recommended that the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs take steps to monitor SAA spending and
identify whether any resources are spent on activities that duplicate
the efforts of other agencies. We also recommended that the Secretary
establish outcome-oriented performance measures to assess the
effectiveness of SAA efforts. VA agreed with our findings and
recommendations and stated that it will take a number of steps to
address them.
To conduct our work, we reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and
program materials; and interviewed officials from each of the entities
involved in the various approval processes, including federal agencies,
state approving agencies, schools and training programs. We also
reviewed and analyzed data on approval decisions from VA, Education,
and Labor. Our work was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Background:
VA, Education, and Labor assess education and training programs for
various purposes. VA's approval process is meant to ensure that
education and training programs meet VA standards for receipt of
veteran education assistance benefits, while Education's and Labor's
processes are primarily for awarding student aid and providing
apprenticeship assistance.
VA administers a number of programs designed to assist individuals in
gaining access to postsecondary education or training for a specific
occupation (see table 1). VA generally provides its assistance in the
form of payments to veterans, service persons, reservists, and certain
spouses and dependents.
Table 1: VA Beneficiaries of and Funding for Education and Training
Assistance Programs in Fiscal Year 2006:
Programs *: Montgomery GI Bill (Chapter 30);
Beneficiaries: 313,766;
Expenditures: $1,909,014,605.
Programs *: Reserve Educational Assistance Program (Chapter 1607);
Beneficiaries: 23,747;
Expenditures: $151,397,610.
Programs *: Educational Assistance for the Selected Reserve (Chapter
1606);
Beneficiaries: 65,145;
Expenditures: $48,716,031.
Programs *: Dependents and Survivors Educational Assistance Program
(Chapter 35);
Beneficiaries: 74,532;
Expenditures: $38,787,332.
Programs *: Veterans Educational Assistance Program (Chapter 32);
Beneficiaries: 575;
Expenditures: $59,113.
Programs *: Total;
Beneficiaries: 477,765;
Expenditures: $2,147,974,691.
Source: VA.
* No payments for the National Call to Service program were made in
fiscal year 2006.
[End of table]
Benefits can be used to pursue a degree program, vocational program,
apprenticeship, and on-the-job training (see fig. 1). Before an
individual entitled to VA education assistance can obtain money for an
education or training program, the program must be approved by an SAA,
or by VA in those cases in which an SAA has not been contracted to
perform the work.
Figure 1: Veteran Enrollment by Program Type in Fiscal Year 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of VA enrollment data.
[End of figure]
VA's administrative structure for the education and training assistance
programs includes its national office, which oversees the four regional
processing offices (RPO), and the national contract with SAAs. RPOs
administer the education assistance programs and process benefits for
veterans. SAAs review education and training programs to determine
which programs should be approved and ensure schools and training
providers are complying with VA standards. SAAs have six core duties:
(1) approval of programs, (2) visits to facilities, (3) technical
assistance to individuals at facilities, (4) outreach, (5) liaison with
other service providers, and (6) contract management. Sixty SAAs exist
in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Eight
states have two SAAs. SAAs are usually part of a state's department of
education (31 SAAs). In some states, SAAs are organizationally located
in other departments such as labor (9 SAAs) or veterans' services (19
SAAs).
The U.S. Department of Education's approval process is to ensure that
schools meet federal Education standards to participate in federal
student financial aid programs. In order for students attending a
school to receive Title IV financial aid, a school must be (1) licensed
or otherwise legally authorized to provide postsecondary education in
the state in which it is located, (2) accredited by an entity
recognized for that purpose by the Secretary of Education, and (3)
certified to participate in federal student aid programs by Education.
As such, the state licensing agencies, accrediting agencies, and
certain offices within Education are responsible for various approval
activities.
* State licensing agencies grant legal authority to postsecondary
institutions to operate in the state in which they are located. Each of
the states has its own agency structure, and each state can choose its
own set of standards.
* Accrediting agencies develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer
evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met by
postsecondary institutions. Institutions or programs that meet an
agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency. As of November
2005, there were 60 recognized private accrediting agencies of regional
or national scope.
* The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education
evaluates and recognizes accrediting agencies based on federal
requirements to ensure these agencies are reliable authorities as to
the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of
higher education and the higher education programs they accredit.
* The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid
determines the administrative and financial capacity of schools to
participate in student financial aid programs, conducts ongoing
monitoring of participant schools, and ensures participant schools are
accredited and licensed by the states.
The purpose of the Department of Labor's approval process is to
establish and promote labor standards to safeguard the welfare of
apprentices. Labor establishes standards and registers programs that
meet the standards. Labor directly registers and oversees programs in
23 states but has granted 27 states, the District of Columbia, and 3
territories authority to register and oversee their own programs,
conducted by state apprenticeship councils (SACs). Labor reviews the
activities of the SACs. SACs ensure that apprenticeship programs for
their respective states comply with federal labor standards, equal
opportunity protections, and any additional state standards.
Figure 2 shows the agencies responsible for the approval processes for
the various types of education and training programs.
Figure 2: Agencies Responsible for the Approval Process for Education
and Training Programs:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO Analysis.
[End of figure]
Legislative Changes Effective in 2001 Created Additional
Responsibilities for SAAs:
In 2001, SAAs received additional responsibilities as a result of
legislative changes. This included responsibility for actively
promoting the development of apprenticeship and on-the-job training
programs and conducting more outreach activities to eligible persons
and veterans to increase awareness of VA education assistance. SAAs
were also charged with approving tests used for licensing and
certification, such as tests to become a licensed electrician. For
those tests that have been approved, veterans can use VA benefits to
pay for testing fees. From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, SAA funding
increased from $13 million to $19 million to expand services and
support the additional responsibilities. Funding is scheduled to begin
to decrease in fiscal year 2008.
Many Education and Training Programs Approved by SAAs Have Also Been
Approved by Education or Labor, and VA Has Taken Few Steps to
Coordinate Approval Activities with These Agencies:
Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have also been
approved by Education and Labor. Sixty-nine percent of all programs
approved by SAAs are offered by institutions that have also been
certified by Education. Seventy-eight percent of SAA-approved programs
in institutions of higher learning (e.g., colleges and universities)
have been certified by Education. Also, 64 percent of SAA-approved non-
college degree programs are in institutions that have been certified by
Education. Although less than 2 percent of all programs approved by
SAAs are apprenticeship programs, VA and SAA officials reported that
many of these programs have also been approved by Labor.
Similar categories of approval standards exist across agencies, but the
specific standards within each category vary and the full extent of
overlap is unknown. For example, while VA and Education's approval
standards both have requirements for student achievement, the New
England Association of Schools and Colleges, an accrediting agency,
requires that students demonstrate competence in various areas such as
writing and logical thinking, while VA does not have this requirement.
Also among the student achievement standards, VA requires schools to
give appropriate credit for prior learning, while Education does not
have such a requirement. Table 2 shows the similar categories of
standards that exist across agencies.
Table 2: Approval Standards of Education and Training Programs Used by
VA, Education, and Labor:
Categories of approval standards: Student achievement;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non-accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: x;
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: x;
Education[3]: Education's certification: [Empty];
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Categories of approval standards: Curricula, program objectives, and
faculty;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non- accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: x;
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: x;
Education[3]: Education's certification: x;
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Categories of approval standards: Facilities, equipment, and supplies;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non-accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: x;
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: x;
Education[3]: Education's certification: [Empty];
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Categories of approval standards: Institutional objectives, capacity,
and administration;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non-accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: [Empty];
Education[3]: Education's certification: x;
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Categories of approval standards: Student support services;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non-accredited: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: [Empty];
Education[3]: Education's certification: [Empty];
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: [Empty].
Categories of approval standards: Recruiting and admission practices;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non-accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: [Empty];
Education[3]: Education's certification: x;
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Categories of approval standards: Record of student complaints;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non- accredited: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: [Empty];
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: [Empty];
Education[3]: Education's certification: [Empty];
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: x;
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: [Empty];
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Categories of approval standards: Process related requirements (e.g.
application requirements);
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: IHL/NCD non-accredited: x;
SAA[1,2]: Apprentice-ship: x;
SAA[1,2]: On the job training: x;
Education[3]: Education's certification: x;
Education[3]: Federal Standards for accrediting agencies: [Empty];
Education[3]: Connecticut state licensing agency: x;
Labor: Apprenticeship: x.
Source: GAO analysis of VA, Education, and Labor Standards:
Notes: GAO constructed these categories to encompass the numerous and
broad range of standards used by agencies. SAAs have different sets of
standards for each program type (e.g. IHL and NCD). Education's
approval process involves different sets of standards used by different
entities, such as accrediting agencies. Labor has one set of standards
that is applicable to apprenticeship programs.
[1] By statute, courses must meet certain criteria. These relate to:
(1) record-keeping of student progress; (2) record-keeping of students'
previous education; (3) quality, content and length of courses; (4)
qualifications of administrators and instructors; and (5) equipment,
space, and instructional materials. We categorized the first two
criteria as student achievement, criteria (3) and (4) as Curricula,
Program Objectives and Faculty, and criterion (5) as Institutional
objectives, capacity, and administration. 2SAA approval requirements
for non-accredited courses encompass a number of additional criteria,
such as having a tuition refund policy and enrollment limitations.
3Connecticut's standards may not be representative of standards across
the country:
[End of table]
While agencies have the same approval standards in some instances, the
interpretation and application of these standards may differ. For
example, VA, accrediting agencies, and Labor each require that
facilities have adequate space, equipment, and instructor personnel to
provide quality training, but the definitions of adequacy differ in the
level of specificity. Similarly, VA and accrediting agencies both
require that schools have policies related to student achievement, such
as minimum satisfactory grades, but the requirements differ in level of
specificity.
Despite the overlap in approved programs and standards, VA and SAAs
have made limited efforts to coordinate approval activities with
Education and Labor. VA reported that while it has coordinated with
Education and Labor on issues related to student financial aid and
apprentices' skill requirements, it believes increased coordination is
needed for approval activities in order to determine the extent of
duplicative efforts. Most of the SAA officials we spoke with reported
that they have coordinated with SACs to register apprenticeship
programs in their states. Labor reported that it coordinated with VA's
national office in several instances, including providing a list of
registered apprenticeship programs. Education reported that it does not
have formalized coordination with VA but has had some contacts to
inform VA of its concerns regarding specific institutions.
Information is not available to determine the amount of resources spent
on SAA duties and functions, including those that may overlap with
those of other agencies. VA does not require SAAs to collect
information on the amount of resources they spend on specific approval
activities. The SAA officials we spoke with said that their most time-
consuming activity is conducting inspection and supervisory visits of
schools and training facilities. However, the lack of data on resource
allocation prevented us from determining what portions of funds spent
by SAAs were for approval activities that may overlap with those of
other agencies.
SAAs Reportedly Add Value to the Approval Process for Education and
Training Programs, but the Lack of Outcome-Oriented Performance
Measures Makes It Difficult to Assess the Significance of Their
Efforts:
SAA and other officials reported that SAA activities add value because
they provide enhanced services to veterans and ensure program
integrity. According to these officials, SAAs' added value includes a
focus on student services for veterans and on VA benefits, more
frequent on-site monitoring of education and training programs than
Education and Labor, and assessments and approval of a small number of
programs that are not reviewed by other agencies, such as programs
offered by unaccredited schools, on-the-job training programs, and
apprenticeship programs not approved by Labor.
SAA approval activities reportedly ensure that (1) veterans are taking
courses consistent with occupational goals and program requirements,
(2) schools and training programs have evaluated prior learning and
work experience and grant credit as appropriate, and (3) school or
program officials know how to complete paperwork and comply with
policies required by VA educational assistance through technical
assistance. According to officials we interviewed, SAAs generally
conduct more frequent on-site monitoring of education and training
programs than Education or Labor, possibly preventing fraud, waste, and
abuse. Some officials reported that SAAs' frequent visits were
beneficial because they ensure that schools properly certify veterans
for benefits and that benefits are distributed accurately and quickly.
States, schools, and apprenticeship officials we spoke with reported
that without SAAs, the quality of education for veterans would not
change. However, veterans' receipt of benefits could be delayed and the
time required to complete their education and training programs could
increase.
Despite areas of apparent added value, it is difficult to fully assess
the significance of SAA efforts. VA does measure some outputs, such as
the number of supervisory visits SAAs conduct, but it does not have
outcome-oriented measures, such as the amount of benefit adjustments
resulting from SAAs' review of school certification transactions, to
evaluate the overall effectiveness and progress of SAAs. (See table 3.)
Table 3: Examples of VA Output Measures and Potential Outcome Measures:
Examples of Existing VA output Measures: Percentage of visits to
facilities for supervisory and inspection purposes completed within VA
specified timeframes;
Examples of Potential Outcome Measures: Amount of benefit adjustments
resulting from SAAs' review of school certification transactions.
Examples of Existing VA output Measures: Number of times technical
assistance provided to interested parties such as individuals and
schools;
Examples of Potential Outcome Measures: Error rate of certification
transactions identified by SAAs.
Examples of Existing VA output Measures: Number of approved facilities
with approved programs;
Examples of Potential Outcome Measures: Completion rates of
beneficiaries.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Prior Recommendations and Agency Response:
We made several recommendations to the Department of Veterans Affairs
to help ensure that federal dollars are spent efficiently and
effectively. We recommended that the Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs take steps to monitor its spending and identify
whether any resources are spent on activities that duplicate the
efforts of other agencies. The extent of these actions should be in
proportion to the total resources of the program. Specifically:
* VA should require SAAs to track and report data on resources spent on
approval activities such as site visits, catalog review, and outreach
in a cost-efficient manner, and:
* VA should collaborate with other agencies to identify any duplicative
efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory authority to
streamline the approval process.
In addition, we recommended that the Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs establish outcome-oriented performance measures to
assess the effectiveness of SAA efforts.
VA agreed with the findings and recommendations and stated that it will
(1) establish a working group with the SAAs to create a reporting
system to track and report data for approval activities with a goal of
implementation in fiscal year 2008, (2) initiate contact with
appropriate officials at the Departments of Education and Labor to
identify any duplicative efforts, and (3) establish a working group
with the SAAs to develop outcome-oriented performance measures with a
goal of implementation in fiscal year 2008. While VA stated that it
will initiate contact with officials at Education and Labor to identify
duplicative efforts, it also noted that amending its administrative and
regulatory authority to streamline the approval process may be
difficult due to specific approval requirements of the law. We
acknowledge these challenges and continue to believe that collaboration
with other federal agencies could help VA reduce duplicative efforts.
We also noted that VA may wish to examine and propose legislative
changes needed to further streamline its approval process.
Madame Chairwoman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
GAO Contacts:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
include Heather McCallum Hahn, Andrea Sykes, Kris Nguyen, Jacqueline
Harpp, Cheri Harrington, Lara Laufer, and Susannah Compton.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, VA Student Financial Aid: Management Actions Needed to Reduce
Overlap in Approving Education and Training Programs and to Assess
State Approving Agencies, GAO-07-384 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2007).
[2] GAO, VA Student Financial Aid: Opportunity to Reduce Overlap in
Approving Education and Training Programs, GAO/HEHS-96-22 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 30, 1995).
[3] Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000, Pub. L.
No. 106-419 (2000); and Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act
of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103 (2001).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
