Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact Gao ID: GAO-07-594 May 24, 2007In 2002, Congress enacted the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), which modified two Department of Labor (Labor) programs that specifically target veteran job seekers: the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) program. However, questions have been raised about the adequacy of performance information on services to veterans by these and other employment programs. In this report, GAO examined (1) the extent to which DVOP and LVER performance information reflects services and outcomes for veterans; (2) the extent to which performance information on veterans paints a clear picture of their use of one-stop services; and (3) what Labor is doing to improve the quality of performance data and better understand program impact and outcomes for veterans.
Performance information for the DVOP and LVER programs provides some sense of services and outcomes for veterans, but is weakened by several factors. In July 2005, Labor adopted new performance measures for the programs, but not all have been fully implemented. For example, states are held accountable for helping veterans get and keep jobs, but are not yet held accountable for their average earnings once employed, as they are for other programs. Additionally, having separate performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs fails to acknowledge the similarity of the populations they serve and duties they perform. Furthermore, it is difficult to assess outcomes over time or across states because of frequent changes in reporting requirements that prevent establishing reliable trend data. Labor's data on veteran job seekers paint an unclear picture of their use of other employment and training services in the one-stop system, despite the use of common performance measures across programs. Although many veterans use services other than those provided by the DVOP and LVER programs, key employment programs vary in how well their data on veteran job seekers are shared across programs, making it difficult to know how many veterans are served. In addition, statutory differences in the definitions of veterans hinder efforts to standardize data across employment programs. Moreover, Labor has no means of assessing whether priority of service for veterans has been implemented in various employment programs. Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data and better understand outcomes for veterans. For example, Labor requires states to validate key performance data. Labor has also planned an integrated data reporting system that would track individual veterans' progress through the one-stop system. However, states have raised concerns about the timelines and its current implementation date is unclear. Furthermore, while outcome information on veterans is helpful, it cannot measure whether the outcomes are due to the program or other factors. While Labor has sponsored research on services to veterans, it has not yet conducted the impact evaluation required by law to assess the effectiveness of one-stop services.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-594, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-594
entitled 'Veteran's Employment and Training Service: Labor Could
Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program
Impact' which was released on May 25, 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2007:
Veterans' Employment And Training Service:
Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and
Program Impact:
GAO-07-594:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-594, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2002, Congress enacted the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA), which
modified two Department of Labor (Labor) programs that specifically
target veteran job seekers: the Disabled Veterans‘ Outreach Program
(DVOP) and the Local Veterans‘ Employment Representative (LVER)
program. However, questions have been raised about the adequacy of
performance information on services to veterans by these and other
employment programs. In this report, GAO examined (1) the extent to
which DVOP and LVER performance information reflects services and
outcomes for veterans; (2) the extent to which performance information
on veterans paints a clear picture of their use of one-stop services;
and (3) what Labor is doing to improve the quality of performance data
and better understand program impact and outcomes for veterans.
What GAO Found:
Performance information for the DVOP and LVER programs provides some
sense of services and outcomes for veterans, but is weakened by several
factors. In July 2005, Labor adopted new performance measures for the
programs, but not all have been fully implemented. For example, states
are held accountable for helping veterans get and keep jobs, but are
not yet held accountable for their average earnings once employed, as
they are for other programs. Additionally, having separate performance
measures for the DVOP and LVER programs fails to acknowledge the
similarity of the populations they serve and duties they perform.
Furthermore, it is difficult to assess outcomes over time or across
states because of frequent changes in reporting requirements that
prevent establishing reliable trend data. Labor‘s data on veteran job
seekers paint an unclear picture of their use of other employment and
training services in the one-stop system, despite the use of common
performance measures across programs. Although many veterans use
services other than those provided by the DVOP and LVER programs, key
employment programs vary in how well their data on veteran job seekers
are shared across programs, making it difficult to know how many
veterans are served. In addition, statutory differences in the
definitions of veterans hinder efforts to standardize data across
employment programs. Moreover, Labor has no means of assessing whether
priority of service for veterans has been implemented in various
employment programs. Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality
of performance data and better understand outcomes for veterans. For
example, Labor requires states to validate key performance data. Labor
has also planned an integrated data reporting system that would track
individual veterans‘ progress through the one-stop system. However,
states have raised concerns about the timelines and its current
implementation date is unclear. Furthermore, while outcome information
on veterans is helpful, it cannot measure whether the outcomes are due
to the program or other factors. While Labor has sponsored research on
services to veterans, it has not yet conducted the impact evaluation
required by law to assess the effectiveness of one-stop services.
Figure: Percentage of Disabled and Recently Separated Veterans Served
by the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Year 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making a number of recommendations to improve the performance
measurement system for the DVOP and LVER programs and to better
understand services and their impact for job seekers in the one-stop
system, including veterans.
Labor generally agreed with the report‘s findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-594].
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]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DVOP and LVER Performance Information Is Weakened by Several Factors:
Available Data Paint an Unclear Picture of Veterans' Use of One-Stop
Services:
Labor Has Taken Steps to Better Understand Veterans' Outcomes, but the
Programs' Impact Remains Unknown:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance in the DVOP and LVER Programs
for Benchmark Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for Program Year
2006:
Appendix III: Summary of State-Negotiated Goals and Performance for
Veterans in the Employment Service, Program Year 2005:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Responsibilities of DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff:
Table 2: Common Measures Adopted by Labor's Employment and Training
Programs:
Table 3: Performance Measures for the DVOP and LVER Programs:
Table 4: DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff Served Similar Proportions of
Recently Separated and Disabled Participants in Program Year 2005:
Table 5: Differences between Veteran Definitions in Employment and
Training Programs:
Table 6: States and Local Areas in Our Study:
Table 7: Summary of State Performance in the DVOP Program for Benchmark
Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006:
Table 8: Summary of State Performance in the LVER Program for Benchmark
Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006:
Table 9: State-Negotiated Goals and Performance for Veterans in the
Employment Service, Program Year 2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: A Large Proportion of Disabled and Recently Separated
Veterans Are Not Captured in Performance Measures for Those Populations
(Program Year 2005):
Figure 2: Changes to Performance Information over Time for the DVOP and
LVER Programs:
Figure 3: Veterans Can Access Multiple Employment Services in the One-
Stop System:
Figure 4: Many States Report That DVOP Specialists or LVER Staff See
Half or Fewer of Veterans That Come into One-Stop Centers:
Figure 5: Percentage of States Responding that Different Definitions
Affect the Coordination of Services to Veterans:
Figure 6: Most State Workforce Agencies Report That Their State Systems
Take Certain Steps to Ensure the Accuracy and Reliability of Employment
Service, DVOP, and LVER Data:
Abbreviations:
DVOP: Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program:
EER: entered employment rate:
EMILE: ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation system:
ERR: employment retention rate:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
JVA: Jobs for Veterans Act:
LVER: Local Veterans' Employment Representative:
NASWA: National Association of State Workforce Agencies:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
TAA: Trade Adjustment Assistance:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
VETS: Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIASRD: Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data:
WISPR: Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting System:
WRIS: Wage Record Interchange System:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 24, 2007:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable Larry E. Craig:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
U.S. Senate:
The Honorable Bob Filner:
Chairman:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
Approximately 700,000 veterans are unemployed in any given month, and
roughly 200,000 service members leave active duty and transition to
civilian life each year, according to the Department of Labor (Labor).
While their unemployment rate is similar to that of the general
population, some veterans have special needs in transitioning to the
civilian labor market. Labor has long provided assistance to veterans
to help them succeed in this endeavor. In 2002, Congress enacted the
Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) to improve employment and training services
for veterans by better integrating them into the comprehensive service
delivery system, or one-stop system, created under the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. JVA modified two Labor programs that
specifically target veteran job seekers and that are administered by
the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)--the Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans' Employment
Representative (LVER) program--and consolidated the funding into a
single grant to states. These two programs were funded at about $155
million in fiscal year 2006, and served over 715,000 veterans
nationwide in the most recent program year. JVA addressed concerns
raised by some that the programs were overly prescriptive and did not
provide states the flexibility to determine the best way to serve
veteran job seekers. Instead, JVA identified broad roles and
responsibilities of DVOP and LVER staff while giving states flexibility
to determine the number of staff for each program. In addition, the law
required the implementation of a comprehensive performance
accountability system that included performance measures for the two
programs--consistent with those under WIA--and enhanced accountability
for veteran services in the one-stop system. Moreover, many veterans
receive reemployment services from programs other than the DVOP and
LVER, and JVA stipulated that veterans served by these other programs
be given preference over nonveterans, as long as they meet the
eligibility requirements. These programs--administered by a separate
office within Labor, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-
-include the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, the Wagner-
Peyser-funded Employment Service, and other key employment programs.
To implement JVA, VETS adopted a set of common performance measures in
July 2005, similar to those adopted by other employment and training
programs. Each quarter, states report a wide range of data to Labor on
demographics, services, and outcomes for veterans in the DVOP and LVER
programs. States are specifically held accountable for certain
employment-related outcomes for all veterans--whether veteran
participants get and keep jobs--and separately, for the outcomes of
some disabled and recently separated veterans. JVA requires Labor to
include information in its annual report to Congress on whether
veterans are receiving priority and are being fully served by
employment and training programs. However, questions have been raised
about whether available performance information accurately reflects
services and outcomes for veterans. Moreover, outcome information alone
cannot be used to evaluate the effectiveness--or impact--of employment
services for veterans. Program outcomes may be attributable to factors
other than a program's services, such as local labor market conditions.
In view of these concerns and the changes to the performance
accountability system resulting from the Jobs for Veterans Act, you
requested that we review the performance information collected on
employment and training programs that serve veterans. Specifically, we
examined (1) the extent to which DVOP and LVER performance information
reflects services and outcomes for veterans served by these programs;
(2) the extent to which performance information on veterans served by
other key programs paints a clear picture of veterans' use of one-stop
services and (3) what Labor is doing to improve the quality of
performance data and better understand outcomes for veteran job
seekers.
To determine the extent to which available performance information
reflects services and outcomes for veteran job seekers, we administered
a nationwide Web-based survey to state workforce administrators in all
50 states and the District of Columbia. We received responses from all
51 administrators. In addition, we analyzed performance data from the
relevant programs and reviewed Labor's program guidance. To better
understand state and local variation in employment programs serving
veterans, we conducted site visits to three states: New Hampshire,
California, and Tennessee. We selected these states based on a range of
criteria, including geographic dispersion, state size and veteran
demographics, recent state performance in veterans' programs, and
recommendations by Labor and the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies. Our site visits included interviews with state
workforce agency officials, the federal Director of Veterans'
Employment and Training for each state, one-stop managers, and DVOP and
LVER program staff. Additionally, we interviewed Labor officials from
both VETS and ETA. As part of this effort, we conducted interviews with
all six Regional Administrators of Veterans' Employment and Training to
help understand regional variation in the programs. Finally, we
reviewed literature on attributes of successful performance measures,
including our previous work.[Footnote 1] For a detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology, see appendix I. We conducted our review from
May 2006 to April 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Performance measures and data for the DVOP and LVER programs generally
reflect veterans' services and outcomes, but are weakened by several
factors. The new performance measures, in place since July 2005,
provide information on some outcomes for veterans, but have not been
fully implemented. For example, states are held accountable for helping
veterans get and keep jobs, but are not yet held accountable for
veterans' average earnings, as they are for other employment and
training programs. Additionally, the current performance measures do
not include a method to weight the successful outcomes of veterans who
are harder to serve, such as those with barriers to employment, as
required by JVA. Labor developed but has not implemented such a method-
-which could better reflect the difficulty of serving these veterans--
because the system was seen as too complicated for field staff. In
addition, neither the performance measures nor the data reported to
Labor reflect the full range of services that DVOP and LVER staff
provide to veterans. For example, the current measures hold only DVOP
specialists accountable for disabled veterans' employment and
retention, but LVER staff also serve a large number of disabled
veterans who are not counted in those measures. Similarly, only LVER
staff are measured on outcomes for recently separated veterans,
although DVOP specialists serve roughly the same number of recently
separated veterans. Also, while states collect a wide range of
performance data on services and outcomes for veterans, the data
reported to Labor do not currently include information on outreach to
employers, a key program activity. Furthermore, it is difficult to
assess outcomes over time, in part because of frequent changes in
states' reporting requirements that prevent establishing reliable trend
data.
Labor's data on services and outcomes for veteran job seekers paint an
unclear picture of veterans' use of employment and training services in
the one-stop system. Despite the shared use of common performance
measures, key employment and training programs vary in the extent to
which their data on veteran participants are integrated or shared with
other programs. As a result, many states may not know how many veterans
they serve through the one-stop system. For example, most states
reported that veteran job seekers receive initial assistance from the
Employment Service, which uses the same reporting system as the DVOP
and LVER programs and produces separate quarterly reports on services
and outcomes for veterans. However, states use a different reporting
system for WIA, and fewer than half the states told us that they do not
match WIA and Employment Service records to obtain an unduplicated
count of veterans served by those programs. In addition, Labor and some
state officials we surveyed reported that statutory differences in the
way veterans are defined for purposes of program eligibility make it
difficult to standardize data across employment programs. For example,
a veteran is generally defined for the DVOP and LVER programs as an
individual who served on active duty for more than 180 days, while WIA
does not specify a length of time in service. About half of states
claimed that the conflicting definitions in various employment programs
complicate data entry, referrals to other programs, and the
implementation of priority of service. Moreover, Labor has no method of
gauging the extent to which priority of service for veterans has been
implemented in various employment programs, despite JVA's requirement
that the agency include this information in its annual report to
Congress.
Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data
and better understand veterans' services and outcomes, but the overall
impact of employment services for veterans is unknown. Labor has
developed processes to enhance data quality. For example, ETA requires
states to validate some key performance data reported for Employment
Service and WIA-funded programs. In addition, ETA and VETS have begun
to work together on issues of data quality by, for example, conducting
joint monitoring visits to states that include an examination of the
data. Furthermore, Labor's planned implementation of an integrated data
reporting system could greatly enhance the understanding of veterans'
services and outcomes. The new system is designed to integrate and
expand data reporting across multiple employment programs, including
the Employment Service, WIA, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), and the
DVOP and LVER programs. Using this system, for the first time, Labor
and states would be able to track individual veterans' progress through
different programs in the one-stop system. However, according to a
Labor official, states have expressed concerns about the time needed to
implement such a system, and the timeline for implementation remains
unclear. Furthermore, while outcome information on veteran job seekers
helps assess whether individuals are achieving their intended goals--
such as obtaining employment--it cannot measure whether the outcomes
are a direct result of program participation, rather than external
factors. Labor has sponsored research on services to veterans. However,
it has not conducted an impact evaluation, as required under WIA, to
assess the effectiveness of one-stop services. Such a study should
include impacts for key participant groups, including veterans. We
recommended in a prior report that Labor take steps to conduct such an
evaluation, but there has been no action to date.
To improve performance information on veteran job seekers, we are
making a number of recommendations to Labor regarding changes to the
performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs, standardization of
the different veteran definitions in employment programs, guidance on
Labor's proposed integrated data-reporting system, and inclusion of
veterans' services in an impact evaluation. In its comments, Labor
generally concurred with our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
Background:
The nation's veteran job seekers receive employment and training
services from programs overseen by two agencies within Labor--the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service and the Employment and
Training Administration. General employment services fall under the
purview of ETA, which administers the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment
Service program, providing a national system of public employment
services to all individuals seeking employment--including veterans.
Thus, those veterans considered job ready and not in need of intensive
services may be served by Employment Service staff and receive such
services as assessment, counseling, job readiness evaluation, and
placement. ETA carries out its Employment Service program through
workforce agencies in each state. In fiscal year 2006, the Employment
Service program provided a total of about $716 million to states.
While ETA administers programs that serve the general population,
including veterans, VETS administers the DVOP and LVER programs, which
focus exclusively on serving veterans, often providing more intensive
services than the Employment Service does. Like ETA, VETS carries out
its responsibilities through a nationwide network that includes
representation in each of Labor's six regions and staff in each state.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS administers the agency's
activities through regional administrators and state directors. The
DVOP specialists and LVER staff, whose positions are funded by VETS,
are part of states' public employment services. In fiscal year 2006,
the DVOP and LVER programs were funded at about $155 million. In the
most recent program year--program year 2005, which spanned July 1,
2005, to June 30, 2006--the Employment Service, together with the DVOP
and LVER programs, reported serving about 1.32 million veterans
nationwide, of whom over 715,000 were served by DVOP specialists and
LVER staff.
The Employment Service and the DVOP and LVER programs are mandatory
partners in the one-stop system under WIA--where services are provided
by a range of employment and training programs in a single location.
Veterans, along with other eligible job seekers, may receive services
from other mandatory one-stop partners, such as WIA-funded training or
Trade Adjustment Assistance.[Footnote 2] Additionally, job seekers,
including veterans, may use the one-stop centers' computers and other
resources without staff assistance, and in many places may access one-
stop services online from home. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
programs are not mandatory partners in the one-stop system, but do
participate at some locations.
Jobs for Veterans Act Reforms:
In 2002, the Jobs for Veterans Act amended Title 38 of the U.S. Code--
which governs the DVOP and LVER programs--and by doing so, introduced
an array of reforms to the way employment and training services are
provided to veterans.[Footnote 3] JVA sought to address concerns that
the programs were overly prescriptive by providing states with enhanced
flexibility to determine the best way to serve veteran job seekers.
Among its reforms, JVA:
* redefined the DVOP specialist and LVER staff roles but gave states
flexibility in deciding their duties;
* established a single state grant and a new funding formula that
allowed states to determine the mix of DVOP specialists and LVER staff;
* required a comprehensive performance accountability system consistent
with WIA performance measures;
* required that veterans receive priority over other job seekers in all
Labor job training programs, not just the Employment Service;[Footnote
4] and:
* required that VETS include information in its annual report to
Congress on employment services to veterans throughout the one-stop
system.
JVA identified broad roles and responsibilities of DVOP specialists and
LVER staff. For example, DVOP specialists are to focus on providing
intensive services to eligible veterans, giving priority to disabled
veterans and those with other barriers to employment. LVER staff are to
focus on conducting outreach to employers to assist veterans in gaining
employment, as well as facilitating employment, training, and placement
services given to veterans. State workforce agencies receive a single
veterans' program grant to fund both programs; the amount each state
receives is determined in part by the size of the veteran population
within each state. State agencies then decide how to distribute the
amount they receive between the two programs. Table 1 lists selected
responsibilities of DVOP specialists and LVER staff as set forth in
Labor guidance.
Table 1: Selected Responsibilities of DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff:
Unique responsibilities;
DVOP specialists:
* Facilitate intensive services to veterans with special employment and
training needs;
* Target services to disabled veterans and veterans with other barriers
to employment, such as homeless veterans;
LVER staff:
* Promote veterans' skills and experience and advocate for veterans
with employers through activities such as job fairs;
* Facilitate and maintain regular contact with employers.
Shared responsibilities;
DVOP specialists:
Both DVOP specialists and LVER staff may;
* Provide a full range of employment and training services to veterans;
* Facilitate employment workshops for those leaving the military.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data.
[End of table]
JVA also stipulated that veteran job seekers must receive priority over
other job seekers in any job training program administered by Labor.
Labor's guidance requires states to explain how veterans will be given
priority and how veterans' services will be provided through the
state's one-stop system. For programs that target particular
populations, such as seniors or low-income individuals, veterans'
priority is applied after any other mandatory eligibility provisions
are met.
Changes to the DVOP and LVER Performance Information:
Like other Labor employment and training programs, the DVOP and LVER
programs have experienced changes both in the way outcomes are tracked
and in the measures used to assess performance. Specifically, in 1998,
WIA required that states use automated unemployment insurance wage
records to track employment-related outcomes. Formerly, to obtain data
on outcomes, states relied on a manual follow-up process using
administrative records or contacts with job seekers. To conform to WIA,
VETS moved from such a manual follow-up system to the new automated
process in 2002.
The measures that Labor uses to assess performance in the DVOP and LVER
programs have also changed over time, gradually reflecting more
emphasis on outcome-based measures. Before passage of the JVA in 2002,
for example, some of the measures used for the DVOP and LVER programs
focused more on services received--such as the number of veterans in
training or receiving counseling--than on outcomes achieved. In 2002,
JVA required that Labor develop a comprehensive performance
accountability system and required that the new system measure
performance in a way that is consistent with WIA. In 2003, VETS adopted
performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs based on those then
used in WIA. In 2005, in response to an Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) initiative, Labor began requiring states to implement common
performance measures for its employment and training programs,
including the DVOP and LVER programs, the Employment Service, and WIA.
OMB established a set of common measures to be applied to most
federally funded job training programs that share similar goals. Labor
further defined the common measures for all of its Employment and
Training Administration programs, applying three measures to each of
its adult programs (see table 2).
Table 2: Common Measures Adopted by Labor's Employment and Training
Programs:
Common measure: Entered employment rate;
Definition: The number of participants employed in the first quarter
after exiting the program, divided by the total number of participants
who exit the program during the quarter.
Common measure: Employment retention rate;
Definition: Of those participants who are employed in the first quarter
after exiting the program, the number employed in both the second and
third quarters after exit, divided by the number of participants
employed in the first quarter after the quarter of exit.
Common measure: Average earnings;
Definition: Of those participants who are employed after the first,
second, and third quarter after the exit quarter, total earnings in the
second quarter plus total earnings in the third quarter after the exit
quarter divided by the number of adult participants who exit during the
quarter.
Source: Labor.
[End of table]
In applying the common measures to its programs, VETS also developed
additional measures to emphasize outcomes for disabled veterans in the
DVOP program and outcomes for recently separated veterans in the LVER
program.
Data Reporting:
Labor collects performance data for the DVOP and LVER programs on a
quarterly basis from state workforce agencies. The state agencies use
report formats developed by Labor to provide detailed tabulations of
aggregate information on the characteristics of veteran participants,
services, and outcomes for the two programs, including data showing
states' performance using the common measures. The state agencies
provide this information to Labor in three separate reports: one for
the DVOP program, one for the LVER program, and one representing an
unduplicated count for both programs.
Furthermore, Labor collects additional information on veterans who
participate in other Labor programs. For example, ETA collects
performance data for the Employment Service on all participants on a
quarterly basis from state workforce agencies, and these reports break
out services and outcomes for veteran participants. States submit their
quarterly reports for the Employment Service and the DVOP and LVER
programs through the same Labor reporting system.
The Role of Impact Evaluations in Assessing Program Outcomes:
Information on the services a program has provided and the outcomes
obtained by program participants are necessary to assess program
impacts. However, this information is not sufficient to measure program
impacts--the outcomes may be due to other external factors such as
local labor market conditions. While impact evaluations allow one to
isolate a program's effect on the outcomes of participants, there are
several approaches to conducting such evaluations. The experimental
method is often considered the most rigorous method for conducting
impact evaluations. In the experimental method, participants are
randomly assigned to two groups--one that receives a program service
(or treatment) and one that does not (control group). The resulting
outcome data on both groups are compared and the difference in outcomes
between the groups is taken to demonstrate the programs impact.
However, it is not always feasible to use the experimental method for
assessing program impacts. Alternatively, researchers may use a quasi-
experimental approach in which program participation is not randomly
assigned. One approach, often called a comparison group study, compares
outcome data for individuals who participated in the program with data
on others who did not participate for various reasons. In a comparison
group study, it is important to find ways to minimize, or statistically
control for, any differences between the two groups. According to OMB,
well-matched comparison group studies, under certain circumstances, can
approach the rigor of the experimental method, and it recommends
considering this method if random assignment is not feasible or
appropriate.
Under WIA, Labor was required to conduct at least one impact evaluation
of program services by 2005. In a 2004 report, we found that Labor had
not yet begun such an evaluation, and recommended that the agency
comply with this statutory requirement and help federal, state, and
local policy makers understand what services are most effective for
improving employment-related outcomes.[Footnote 5]
DVOP and LVER Performance Information Is Weakened by Several Factors:
The DVOP and LVER programs' performance information is weakened by
several factors, including implementation challenges and frequent
changes to performance reporting requirements. In July 2005, Labor
implemented new performance measures, which provide information on some
outcomes for veterans. However, not all performance measures have been
fully implemented. Additionally, neither the performance measures nor
the data reported to Labor reflect the full range of services that DVOP
specialists and LVER staff provide to veteran job seekers. Furthermore,
it is difficult to assess outcomes over time or across states because
of frequent changes in states' reporting requirements that prevent
establishing reliable trend data.
The New Performance Measures Provide Information on Some Outcomes for
Veterans, but Have Not Been Fully Implemented:
In July 2005, the DVOP and LVER programs adopted the Office of
Management and Budget's common measures, along with other employment
programs, including WIA and the Employment Service. Specifically,
states implemented measures that track whether veterans obtain and keep
jobs after receiving services through these programs, but they have not
yet implemented a measure to track veterans' earnings. States are held
accountable for four separate measures in each program that focus on
outcomes attained by veterans (see table 3). For the DVOP program,
states are held accountable for employment and retention for all
veterans served by the program, as well as for disabled veterans. For
the LVER program, states are assessed on employment and retention for
all veterans, as well as for recently separated veterans. Currently,
all states collect and report data to Labor for calculating performance
attainment and negotiating state goals for these eight
measures.[Footnote 6]
Table 3: Performance Measures for the DVOP and LVER Programs:
Program: DVOP;
Type of measure: Entered employment rate;
All veterans: Check;
Disabled veterans: Check;
Recently separated veterans: [Empty].
Program: DVOP;
Type of measure: Employment retention rate;
All veterans: Check;
Disabled veterans: Check;
Recently separated veterans: [Empty].
Program: LVER;
Type of measure: Entered employment rate;
All veterans: Check;
Disabled veterans: [Empty];
Recently separated veterans: Check.
Program: LVER;
Type of measure: Employment retention rate;
All veterans: Check;
Disabled veterans: [Empty];
Recently separated veterans: Check.
Source: Labor.
[End of table]
However, states are not yet held accountable for an additional common
measure--veterans' average earnings--in either the DVOP or the LVER
programs. Other employment and training programs, such as WIA and the
Employment Service, include an average earnings measure for which
states are accountable. For the DVOP and LVER programs, however,
calculating the average earnings was not as straightforward as Labor
had anticipated. A VETS official told us that the agency will calculate
baseline data for average earnings during the current program year, but
Labor will not establish goals and states will not be held accountable
for their performance on this measure until the following year--program
year 2007--at the earliest.
Furthermore, Labor has not adopted a system to give more weight to
successful outcomes for veterans who have substantial barriers to
employment, such as a disability. JVA required Labor to weight
performance measures to provide special consideration to veterans
requiring intensive services, as well as disabled veterans. Such a
weighting system would compensate for the fact that veterans with
barriers to employment may need more assistance than others in finding
jobs. It would also provide an incentive for program staff to help
veterans with severe barriers to employment. For example, if a veteran
has a disability and requires intensive case management services, his
or her successful outcomes would have a greater effect on a state's
overall performance than those of other veterans with fewer barriers.
Following JVA's enactment, Labor formed a work group to develop a
weighting system for the DVOP and LVER performance measures. On the
basis of the group's work, the agency issued guidance to introduce the
weighted measures to states in June 2003, with the expectation of
implementing them soon after. However, after further review, a Labor
official told us the agency did not implement the weights in order to
give states time to fully implement other reporting changes. At this
time, it is not clear whether Labor will implement this system in the
future.
Performance Measures and the Data Reported to Labor Do Not Reflect the
Full Range of Staff Services:
Although DVOP specialists and LVER staff perform similar duties for all
types of veterans in most states, the current performance measures hold
the two programs accountable for different groups of veterans. JVA and
Labor's guidance outline the key responsibilities and target
populations for DVOP specialists and LVER staff, but also allow for
some flexibility in their roles and responsibilities. Both DVOP and
LVER staff are expected to serve the general veteran population, but
DVOP specialists are also expected to target their services toward
veterans who have greater barriers to employment and need intensive
case management, including disabled veterans. JVA specifies that LVER
staff focus on conducting outreach to employers and assisting all
veteran job seekers. In addition, Labor has recently added the
expectation that LVER staff focus their responsibilities on assisting
recently separated veterans. As a result of these expectations, Labor
separately holds DVOP specialists accountable for the outcomes achieved
by the disabled veterans they serve, and LVER staff for the outcomes of
the recently separated veterans they serve.
In practice, however, both programs' staff serve similar veteran
populations. In program year 2005, for example, 14 percent of veterans
served by the DVOP program were disabled and 21 percent were recently
separated. For the LVER program, 10 percent of veterans served were
disabled and 19 percent were recently separated (see table 4). States
acknowledged this similarity in our survey as well. Over a third of
states responded that DVOP and LVER staff are equally likely to serve
disabled veterans, while about half of states responded that the two
programs' staff are equally likely to serve recently separated
veterans.
Table 4: DVOP Specialists and LVER Staff Served Similar Proportions of
Recently Separated and Disabled Participants in Program Year 2005:
Served by DVOPs;
Veterans: Recently separated: Number: 78,843;
Veterans: Recently separated: Percentage: 21;
Veterans: Disabled: Number: 52,331;
Veterans: Disabled: Percentage: 14;
Veterans: Total served: 382,144.
Served by LVERs;
Veterans: Recently separated: Number: 78,379;
Veterans: Recently separated: Percentage: 19;
Veterans: Disabled: Number: 41,847;
Veterans: Disabled: Percentage: 10;
Veterans: Total served: 408,837.
Source: Labor.
Note: These numbers include 49 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. They do not include Pennsylvania because it is piloting a
new reporting system and currently not submitting the standard
quarterly reports for the DVOP and LVER programs.
[End of table]
In addition to finding similarity in populations served, we also found
some similarity in activities carried out by DVOP and LVER staff.
States reported that the three activities on which DVOP specialists
spend the most time include:
* providing intensive case management services,
* conducting an initial assessment or interview, and:
* assisting with job search activities.
The top three activities LVER staff perform include:
* conducting outreach to employers,
* assisting with job search activities, and:
* conducting an initial assessment or interview.
This division of duties appears to reflect the different focuses of the
two programs, as well as the flexibility under JVA for states to decide
on staff duties. However, almost 85 percent of states responded that
DVOP specialists conduct outreach to employers, a focus of the LVER
program. Additionally, almost 60 percent of states responded that LVER
staff provide intensive services, a primary focus of the DVOP program.
In our site visits, we found that this similarity in staff roles and
target populations exists in part because some one-stop centers have
only a single DVOP specialist or LVER staff on duty at any given time.
In these particular one-stop centers, the same employee is responsible
for serving all groups of veterans and carrying out job roles for both
programs. Even in centers with more than one staff person, veterans
tend to be served by whichever staff person is available at that time.
Program staff in several centers told us that recently separated
veterans were not specifically directed to LVER staff for services, nor
were disabled veterans directed to DVOP staff. This sharing of duties
may be due, in part, to changes in staffing levels. More than half of
states reported a decrease in the number of full-time DVOP specialists
or LVER staff over the last 2 years, and most attributed this decline
to the size of their state grant for the programs.
Nevertheless, this similarity in roles and populations served causes
the current performance measures to present an incomplete view of
outcomes for disabled and recently separated veterans in the DVOP and
LVER programs. The large numbers of disabled veterans served by the
LVER program and recently separated veterans served by the DVOP program
are not included in the set of measures that focus on the outcomes of
those populations (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: A Large Proportion of Disabled and Recently Separated
Veterans Are Not Captured in Performance Measures for Those Populations
(Program Year 2005):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.
[End of figure]
Beyond the measures for disabled and recently separated veterans,
having separate measures for the DVOP and LVER programs obscures the
overall picture of outcomes to veterans, given the similarity between
many of the program activities and the reality of how the programs
operate. According to our survey, almost half the states would like
Labor to consolidate the performance measures for the DVOP and LVER
programs.
While the performance measures present an incomplete view of the
outcomes for veterans, the data that states are required to report to
Labor do not reflect the full range of staff services. Labor requires
states to report a wide range of data for the DVOP and LVER programs,
including information on veteran characteristics--such as age and
disability status--and staff services provided--such as intensive
services and referrals to other programs. However, Labor does not
require data on employer outreach activities, despite JVA's designation
of employer outreach as a primary job responsibility of LVER staff.
Consequently, Labor and states cannot formally monitor the extent to
which staff perform this activity. Some states, however, collect these
data for their own use. According to our survey, almost half of states
currently collect employer-related information for the DVOP and LVER
programs, and over 75 percent of states reported that it would be
helpful to collect these data.
In addition, even though the data reported to Labor generally reflect
services and outcomes for veterans, these data are aggregate tallies
and do not show services provided to individual veterans. For example,
each state's quarterly reports reflect the sum of all services provided
and do not show the number of services provided per veteran or per
staff person. The current data are useful to provide an overall picture
of the programs' volume and operations. However, these data provide
little information about services received by individual veterans or
delivered by particular veteran staff.
Performance Data Are Not Comparable over Time or across States:
In recent years, reporting requirements for the DVOP and LVER programs
have undergone several significant changes. These changes have moved
the performance accountability system closer to those of other
employment and training programs. At the same time, the changes have
resulted in a lack of reliable trend data. In July 2002, the DVOP and
LVER programs changed from using administrative follow-up to determine
veterans' employment outcomes to obtaining information from
Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records. In doing so, Labor changed
its method of calculating outcomes for veterans in the DVOP and LVER
programs.[Footnote 7] Then, in July 2005, Labor applied the common
measures to these two programs, refining and standardizing the
application of UI wage records to determine outcomes. Under the old
system, Labor calculated entered employment and employment retention
rates based on the number of veterans who participated in the programs.
However, under the new system, Labor calculated these rates based on
how many veterans terminate services and exit the programs. Although
these changes have standardized the performance measures across
programs, they have also prevented Labor and states from developing
consistent, comparable data over the past 5 years. As a result, Labor
does not have reliable historic data for either program. Figure 2
illustrates the various changes to the DVOP and LVER programs'
performance reporting requirements.
Figure 2: Changes to Performance Information over Time for the DVOP and
LVER Programs:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Labor.
[End of figure]
Furthermore, the instability in data collection and reporting has left
Labor unable to establish a national veterans' entered employment
standard, as required by JVA. Labor anticipates that it will need at
least 3 years of stable data to establish the national standard. Once
it is established, all states will be held accountable to the same
minimum goal for veterans' entered employment. However, it is unclear
when Labor will have sufficient data to establish this standard because
states continue to experience difficulty adjusting to the numerous
changes. According to our survey, over 70 percent of states reported
that frequent changes to performance reporting requirements have been
either a great or very great challenge.
The data also vary somewhat state by state. For example, the
application of wage records to calculate veteran outcomes across state
lines is no longer consistent across states. The Wage Record
Interchange System (WRIS) allows states to share UI wage records and
account for job seekers who participate in one state's employment
programs but get jobs in another state. In recent years, all states but
one participated in WRIS, which was operated by the nonprofit National
Association of State Workforce Agencies. In July 2006, Labor assumed
responsibility for administering WRIS. However, many states have
withdrawn, in part because of a perceived conflict of interest between
ETA's role in enforcing federal law and the states' role in protecting
the confidentiality of their data. As of March 2007, only 30 states
were participating in the program, and it is unknown if and when the
other states will enter the data-sharing agreement. As a result, DVOP
and LVER performance information in almost half the states will not
include employment outcomes for veterans who found jobs outside the
states in which they received services. In addition, other reasons
contribute to data variation by state. Labor allows states flexibility
in choosing data collection software, which has resulted in some states
adapting more quickly than others to the recent changes, depending on
their software capabilities. Several Labor officials told us that
because of differences in software capabilities, some states' data may
be more reliable than others'.
Available Data Paint an Unclear Picture of Veterans' Use of One-Stop
Services:
Labor's data on veteran job seekers paint an unclear picture of their
use of employment and training services in the one-stop system, despite
the shared use of common performance measures across programs. Although
many veterans use employment services other than those provided by the
DVOP and LVER programs, key employment programs vary in how well their
data on veteran participants are integrated or shared with other
programs. As a result, many states may not know how many veterans use
one-stop services. In addition, statutory differences in the way
veterans are defined for purposes of program eligibility make it
difficult to standardize data across employment programs. Moreover,
Labor has no means of assessing whether priority of service for
veterans has been implemented in various employment programs.
Veterans Receive Services from Multiple Programs in the One-Stop
System:
Many veteran job seekers receive employment services from the DVOP and
LVER programs. However, some veterans--often the more job-ready--only
use one-stop services aimed at the general population, such as the
Employment Service and WIA programs. In addition, some veterans use
services focused on other subsets of job seekers--such as TAA (see fig.
3). As a result, performance information on many veterans is collected
and reported elsewhere in the one-stop system. In fact, 20 states
reported that about half or fewer of veteran job seekers who access
employment programs receive services from a DVOP specialist or LVER
staff, according to our survey (see fig. 4). In addition, some veterans
obtain services from more than one employment program in the one-stop
system, all of which use the common measures to assess their
performance.
Figure 3: Veterans Can Access Multiple Employment Services in the One-
Stop System:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.
Note: The figure reflects only the services provided by some of the
mandatory partners in the one-stop system. Other optional partners may
participate, but the specific optional partners vary by location.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Many States Report That DVOP Specialists or LVER Staff See
Half or Fewer of Veterans That Come into One-Stop Centers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of state workforce administrators.
[End of figure]
Data on Veterans' Services Are Well Integrated across Some but Not All
Programs in the One-Stop System:
Performance data on veteran job seekers are well integrated or shared
across some key employment and training programs, but not others,
despite the mutual use of common measures. As a result, many states may
not know how many veterans they serve through the one-stop system. Data
on veterans who access the Employment Service are completely integrated
with data from the DVOP and LVER programs--they share the same
reporting system, and DVOP and LVER data are a subset of Employment
Service data. According to our survey, veteran job seekers in most
states receive initial assistance from the Employment Service when they
access the one-stop system. If they are subsequently referred to the
DVOP and LVER programs, all of their information is housed in the same
system and an unduplicated count of veterans served between these
programs can be obtained. In addition, states are held accountable for
meeting separate goals in the Employment Service for veterans and
disabled veterans (see app. III). Labor considers these measures to
reflect veterans' outcomes for the entire one-stop system, as they
constitute outcomes for all veterans who access the Employment Service,
DVOP, and LVER programs. Furthermore, they are the best approximation
of a total count of veterans who access the one-stop system that the
current data will allow.
On the other hand, data on veterans served by other one-stop programs
are not well integrated. States report data to Labor on WIA
participants who exit the programs, including veterans, using the
Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) system.
Although WIASRD contains sufficient information to produce separate
veteran outcome data for WIA programs, states are not required to
produce separate veteran reports and are not accountable for meeting
veteran goals in those programs. In addition, fewer than half the
states reported that they routinely match WIA and Employment Service
records to attain an unduplicated count of veterans served by those
programs. Consequently, veterans who access two different employment
services may be counted twice in some cases. Data for TAA participants
are reported to Labor in yet another data system, which does allow
states to report on the veteran status of participants, but Labor
officials told us the agency does not currently use veteran outcomes
from that program for any purpose.[Footnote 8] VETS does not include
the veteran outcome data from WIA or TAA in its annual report to
Congress, and Labor officials told us they are exploring ways to better
use the data.
In addition, data are not always collected on job seekers who use
Employment Service or WIA resources without assistance from program
staff. These self-assisted job seekers--including veterans--access
services such as labor market or career information either in one-stop
centers or on home computers, but do not receive active assistance from
program staff. Historically, some states have collected information on
these job seekers, while others have not. In our survey, 73 percent of
states reported that they capture information on all veterans who
receive self-assisted services through the Employment Service, while 82
percent of states reported doing so for all veterans who receive self-
assisted WIA services. Labor has encouraged--but not mandated--states
to collect information on this group of job seekers, but agency
officials acknowledged that states continue to vary in how they report
such data. Labor officials have expressed concern that requiring
veterans who receive self-assisted services to register for the
programs might discourage some of them from pursuing the services they
need.
Different Veteran Definitions Complicate Efforts to Standardize Data
and Implement Priority of Service:
Labor and some state officials we surveyed reported that statutory
differences in the definitions of veterans for various employment
programs make it difficult to standardize data across programs. For the
purposes of the DVOP and LVER programs, an eligible veteran is
statutorily defined as an individual who served on active duty for more
than 180 days.[Footnote 9] Labor also uses this definition for the
Employment Service. WIA, on the other hand, does not specify a length
of time in service for a person to be considered a veteran. Moreover,
to qualify as a recently separated veteran in the DVOP and LVER
programs, a veteran must have left active duty in the last 3 years. By
contrast, WIA defines recently separated as having left active duty in
the last 4 years (see table 5).
Table 5: Differences between Veteran Definitions in Employment and
Training Programs:
DVOP, LVER, and Employment Service programs;
Length of time in service: Served on active duty for a period of more
than 180 days;
Recently separated veteran: Up to 3 years after discharge or release
from active duty;
Statutory source: 38 U.S.C. 4211.
WIA programs;
Length of time in service: No requirement for time in service;
Recently separated veteran: Up to 4 years after discharge or release
from active duty;
Statutory source: Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801).
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: To be eligible, all programs require that veterans be discharged
or released from duty under conditions other than dishonorable.
[End of table]
These inconsistent definitions have been difficult for Labor and states
to reconcile with the concept of seamless service delivery and have
caused some confusion for states as they implement priority of service
throughout the one-stop system. While JVA requires that veterans
receive priority over other job seekers in Labor-funded employment and
training programs, it does not define a veteran for purposes of the
priority requirement. Labor has interpreted JVA's provisions to mean
that while veterans are to receive preference in the programs after any
other statutory eligibility requirements are met, each program must use
its own statutory definition of a veteran in applying that preference.
Labor officials told us that one state applied for a waiver in 2006 to
use a single definition of veterans for all of its employment and
training programs, but Labor's Solicitor's Office orally denied the
request. In our survey, approximately half of all states reported that
the conflicting veteran definitions in various employment programs
complicate data entry, referrals to other programs, and the
implementation of priority of service. In addition, about a third of
the states claimed that the definitions created gaps in services for
veteran clients as they moved among employment programs (see fig. 5).
For example, if a veteran receives services from WIA and is
subsequently referred to the DVOP program but is found ineligible, he
or she may become discouraged and stop seeking services altogether.
Figure 5: Percentage of States Responding that Different Definitions
Affect the Coordination of Services to Veterans:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of state workforce administrators.
[End of figure]
Almost half of states shared their concerns about different definitions
by providing additional comments in our survey, many of which cited the
difficulty of providing priority of service under these circumstances.
For example, one state responded that different definitions often lead
to inappropriate referrals, resulting in poor customer service and
frustration for program participants and service providers. Other
states focused on the burden that competing definitions placed on data
collection and reporting. For example, one state responded that the
issue has made it difficult to integrate the state's Employment Service
and WIA data systems, because the different definitions could lead to
invalidating the veteran numbers on reports for those programs. Another
state cited the difficulty in assessing how many veterans were served
by the state, highlighting the complexity of producing an unduplicated
count of veterans served by different programs that do not share a
single definition. States also cited challenges in dealing with other
agencies that are not mandated partners in the one-stop system. For
example, two states mentioned that some staff of other agencies'
programs may hesitate to refer participants to the DVOP and LVER
programs because they are unsure about participant eligibility. An
expert on veterans' issues in the states concurred that the different
eligibility criteria for veterans has been a problem for states and
told us that a common veteran definition for employment and training
programs would be an improvement.
Labor Has No Means of Evaluating Priority of Service for Veterans:
Despite JVA's mandate, Labor has not produced information on the extent
to which veterans receive priority of service in all qualified
employment and training programs. Specifically, JVA required Labor to
evaluate and report on whether veterans are receiving priority of
service and are fully served by its employment programs, as well as
whether the representation of veterans in such programs is in
proportion to their participation in the labor force. In its fiscal
year 2005 report, Labor stated that the participation rate for veterans
in its adult programs was approximately 8.4 percent--slightly higher
than veterans' participation rates in the U.S. workforce. In addition,
the agency reported that outcomes for veterans served in these programs
closely mirrored those of all job seekers in the programs. However,
Labor has no method of gauging how--and how consistently--priority of
service is actually applied. Labor officials told us that the highly
devolved workforce development system makes it very difficult to
evaluate priority of service, because different programs have multiple
access points and diverse eligibility criteria that prevent Labor from
applying a simple measurement technique to each.
States reported that implementing priority of service has been
challenging, as has holding one-stop partner programs accountable for
serving veterans. To supplement federal guidance on this issue, at
least one state has developed its own guidance for implementing and
measuring priority of service. Some Regional Directors of VETS told us
they encouraged the use of that state's guidance as a model for
assessing priority of service for states in their own regions. We do
not know when Labor will develop further guidance on the issue.
However, in December 2006, Congress passed the Veterans Benefits,
Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, which included a
requirement that Labor release regulations on implementing priority of
service within 2 years. In addition, the agency has begun planning a
study of priority of service in response to our prior report.[Footnote
10] According to Labor officials, the study will combine a survey of
participants with a process evaluation and an analysis of outcomes.
Labor does not yet know when the study will get under way.
Labor Has Taken Steps to Better Understand Veterans' Outcomes, but the
Programs' Impact Remains Unknown:
Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data
and better understand veterans' services and outcomes, but the overall
impact of employment services for veterans is unknown. Labor has
developed some processes to enhance data quality. For example, Labor's
ETA requires states to validate some data in key programs. Furthermore,
Labor plans to implement an integrated data-reporting system that would
allow Labor and states to track individual veterans' progress through
different programs in the one-stop system. Additionally, the new system
would expand data collection by, for example, collecting more data on
services to employers. However, states have raised concerns about the
challenge of meeting the system's planned implementation date, and the
timeline for implementation remains unclear. Furthermore, while
performance information helps assess whether individuals are achieving
their intended outcomes--such as obtaining employment--it cannot
measure whether the outcomes are a direct result of program
participation, rather than external factors. To measure the effects of
a program, it is necessary to conduct an impact evaluation that would
seek to assess whether the program itself led to participant outcomes.
Labor has sponsored research on services to veterans. However, it has
not conducted an impact evaluation, as required under WIA, to assess
the effectiveness of one-stop services. Such a study should include
impacts for key participant groups, including veterans. We recommended
in 2004 that Labor take steps to conduct such an evaluation, but there
has been no action to date.
Labor Has Developed Some Processes to Enhance the Quality of
Performance Data:
Labor has taken some steps to improve the quality of performance data
and enhance the understanding of veterans' services and outcomes. To
address data quality concerns, ETA has developed processes requiring
states to validate certain data reported for participants in WIA and
Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service programs. However, while these
programs serve veterans, participant records are randomly selected in
both programs from the total participant population and, therefore, may
not include the records of veteran participants.
Both the WIA data validation process, developed in 2004, and the
Employment Service process, developed in 2003, involve two types of
data validation, although the WIA process is more intensive, according
to Labor officials. Both processes involve (1) data element validation-
-comparing randomly sampled participant records to source files, and
(2) report validation--assessing whether states' software accurately
calculated performance outcomes. While element validation in WIA is
conducted on-site with hardcopy source documentation, the Employment
Service data validation process is performed centrally and
electronically, because Employment Service records are generally
electronic.[Footnote 11] The Employment Service element validation
process checks for duplicate or invalid entries in source files by, for
example, checking for inconsistencies among various veteran-related
fields, such as veteran status and disabled veteran. However, the
Employment Service element validation process cannot check the
underlying accuracy of the data, because there is no hard copy
documentation to prove whether a participant is in fact a veteran.
Labor officials told us that the Employment Service data validation
process has been helpful in raising awareness among states about the
importance of data quality and that some states have come to see it as
a useful tool. Additionally, states responding to our survey generally
agreed that it has been effective--38 states, or about 75 percent,
rated the Employment Service data validation process as effective in
ensuring the accuracy of veteran job seekers' information. For example,
according to one respondent, review of the data validation results is
used as a management tool, to highlight successes and to alert staff to
weaknesses. Nevertheless, some states have expressed concerns about the
data validation processes. Concerns about the process were also raised
by state officials in all 3 of the states we visited. For example,
officials in 2 of the 3 states noted that they had experienced
difficulties adjusting to frequent changes in software before the
results were due to Labor. On our survey, 2 states said that the sample
size was too small to be meaningful, and 4 states expressed concerns
about the fact that the process does not verify the accuracy of the
data in source files. These concerns are similar to those we identified
in a previous report that addressed the WIA process.[Footnote 12]
Additionally, Labor has taken steps to address data quality as a part
of its routine monitoring and technical assistance. Specifically,
beginning in 2004, ETA regional staff have incorporated a data quality
component into compliance visits to state offices, which are generally
conducted once or twice a year, according to Labor officials. Data
validation is just one component of these compliance visits, which
typically do not focus on veterans' data as a separate issue. To
support this effort, Labor officials told us that ETA has amended its
monitoring guide for these visits to include a section on data
validation. According to Labor officials, these visits have been useful
in identifying problems and corrective actions. Moreover, ETA and VETS
have recently collaborated on a few of these compliance
visits.[Footnote 13] Labor officials said they believed this joint
monitoring was beneficial, and expect those efforts to be a model for
future joint visits.
There are several other forms of management reviews that generally
focus on services to veterans but also offer a chance to review data.
For example, VETS regional and state-based staff conduct site visits as
part of their routine monitoring, which focus primarily on services to
veterans but which can include reviewing performance information as
well. Additionally, VETS has required a series of annual assessments--
of the program for each state overall, and self-assessments by DVOP
specialists, LVER staff, and one-stop managers--that address data
issues to a limited extent. State directors use performance data to
substantiate services described in the self-assessment. For example,
according to one official we spoke with, to confirm a LVER staff's
claim of travel to several job fairs, the director can consult the one-
stop's travel log to substantiate whether the LVER staff actually made
the trips.
Beyond the steps Labor has taken, state workforce agencies also perform
functions that affect performance data on services to veterans. Most
states responding to our survey reported that they have taken certain
steps to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data for the Employment
Service, DVOP, and LVER programs, such as having their systems perform
automated checks for inconsistencies in data or for duplicate veteran
files (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Most State Workforce Agencies Report That Their State Systems
Take Certain Steps to Ensure the Accuracy and Reliability of Employment
Service, DVOP, and LVER Data:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of state workforce administrators.
[End of figure]
Labor's Proposed Integrated Data System Could Improve the Understanding
of Services and Outcomes for Veterans:
Since 2004, Labor has been planning to implement an integrated data
reporting system that could greatly enhance the understanding of
veterans' services and outcomes. In 2004, Labor first proposed a
single, streamlined reporting system, known as the ETA Management
Information and Longitudinal Evaluation system (EMILE) that would have
replaced reporting systems for several Labor programs. Labor
substantially modified this system's design in response to concerns
raised by state and local agencies about the burden and cost of the new
system, as well as the challenge of meeting the implementation
deadline. The modified system, now called the Workforce Investment
Streamlined Performance Reporting System (WISPR), was planned with a
July 2007 implementation date.
WISPR has been designed to both integrate and expand data reporting. If
implemented, the system would integrate data reporting by using
standardized reporting requirements across the Employment Service, DVOP
and LVER, WIA, and TAA programs, and ultimately replace their
preexisting reporting systems with a single reporting structure.
Additionally, it would rely on a standardized set of data elements and
quarterly reports to provide data on participant characteristics and
services provided, as well as performance outcomes based on the common
measures. Its integrated design would, for the first time, allow Labor
and states to track individual veterans' progress through the one-stop
system. In addition, the system would expand data collection and
reporting in two key areas: the services that LVER staff provide to
employers, a key aspect of the LVER role on which Labor currently
collects no data, and estimates of the population of veterans who
access the one-stop system but ultimately receive limited or no
services from one-stop staff.
As with EMILE, however, concerns have been raised about challenges in
implementing the new system, and at present, the timeline for WISPR's
implementation remains unclear. Some of the comments received by OMB
during the official comment period noted the challenge of a July 2007
implementation date, according to a Labor official. While states will
have a 2-year period to consolidate reporting on the full range of
programs, they are expected to begin collecting and reporting data in
the new format immediately. As of December 2006, 39 entities, including
state workforce agencies, local agencies and unions, had submitted
comments reflecting their concerns about WISPR to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Of the 20 states that submitted comments,
14 noted that a July 2007 implementation date would represent a
challenge. For example, some of them expressed the view that Labor had
underestimated the time states would need to revise policy, reprogram
systems, and retrain staff. In addition, some states expressed concerns
about their ability to provide data on services to employers. Moreover,
two states expressed the concern that meeting Labor's planned
implementation date would have adverse consequences, such as
compromised data quality or cost overruns. OMB's official review will
address the time needed to build the reporting system's technical
infrastructure, and will play a key role in deciding the system's final
implementation schedule, according to a Labor official. States and
local areas will need enough time to fully meet the requirements of
this expanded data collection.
Little Is Known about the Impact of One-Stop Services, including Those
to Veterans:
Although Labor has improved its outcome data on job seekers who
participate in its programs, these data alone cannot measure whether
outcomes are a direct result of program participation, rather than
external factors. For example, local labor market conditions may affect
an individual's ability to find a job as much or more than
participation in an employment and training program. To measure the
effects of a program, it is necessary to conduct an impact evaluation
that would seek to assess whether the program itself led to participant
outcomes. Labor has not conducted an impact evaluation of one-stop
services, including those to veterans. However, the department did
sponsor a study, issued in 2003, that examined the relationship between
services provided to certain groups of veterans and employment and
earnings outcomes.[Footnote 14] This study employed a number of data
sources and statistical techniques to learn more about how veterans
were using one-stop services. However, while this study provided some
useful information, it could not determine that these services caused
positive outcomes for veteran job seekers. In addition, the study
relied on data from 8 states and its findings could not be generalized
to the national population of veteran job seekers.
Since the full implementation of WIA in 2000--in which the one-stop
system became the required means to provide employment and training
services, including those to veterans--Labor has not made evaluating
the impact of those services a research priority. While WIA required
one such evaluation by 2005, Labor has declined to fund one in prior
budgets. In a 2004 report, we recommended that Labor comply with the
requirements of WIA and conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services to
better understand what services are most effective for improving
employment-related outcomes.[Footnote 15] In response to our report,
Labor cited the need for program stability and proposed delaying an
impact evaluation of WIA until any changes that might be included in
reauthorization legislation had been implemented. While efforts to
reauthorize WIA began in 2003, they have stalled and it is not clear at
this time when they will be complete. Furthermore, OMB has also found
Labor's evaluations of WIA services to be lacking. In response, in its
2008 budget proposal, Labor identified an assessment of WIA's impact on
employment, retention, and earnings outcomes for participants as an
effort the agency would begin. According to Labor officials, the agency
has not yet begun to design the study. Such a study should include
impacts for key participant groups, including veterans. To do so would
require a sufficient sample of veterans to allow such analysis.
Conclusions:
At a time when the nation's attention is focused on those who have
served their country, it is vital that Congress and the Administration
are able to make informed decisions about programs that help veterans
find and keep jobs in the civilian labor market. Frequent changes in
Labor's performance accountability system have hampered Labor's ability
to produce consistent and meaningful performance information on veteran
job seekers. States and local areas have had difficulty implementing
the constant changes to performance information, which introduce error
and make it difficult to identify trends that would give Congress a
better idea of the programs' achievements. While the anticipated
transition to a new reporting system represents a promising advance in
Labor's ability to track the outcomes of veterans in the one-stop
system, states will need time to effectively implement the changes to
avoid compromising the potential benefits--such as improved data
quality--of the system.
Furthermore, the current separate performance measures for the DVOP and
LVER programs do not account for the considerable similarity in veteran
populations served by DVOP specialists and LVER staff, and thus do not
provide an accurate picture of outcomes for veterans served by these
two programs. Using the existing measures, Labor also cannot ensure
that performance outcomes give more weight to services for veterans
with greater barriers to employment. In addition, different veteran
definitions in other programs could make it difficult to analyze
services to veterans throughout the one-stop system. Further, Labor
cannot provide assurance that veterans are appropriately given service
priority by programs in the one-stop system, or that services to
veterans are truly effective. The federal government spends about $155
million each year on the DVOP and LVER programs alone, not counting the
amounts spent on veterans who use other one-stop programs, but there is
no information on whether these programs have an impact in helping this
important population. Establishing a means to gauge the programs'
impact would require a considerable investment of time and money, but
would contribute greatly to the understanding of whether current
employment and training services are meeting veterans' needs.
Furthermore, we continue to urge Labor to meet WIA requirements and our
2004 recommendation to conduct an impact evaluation of one-stop
services.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To provide a better picture of services and outcomes for veteran job
seekers, improve program reporting, and facilitate priority of service,
we recommend that the Secretary of Labor:
* ensure that states are given adequate direction and sufficient time
to implement ETA's planned integrated data reporting system and make
necessary changes;
* consolidate all performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs,
including those for disabled and recently separated veterans;
* comply with JVA's requirement to implement a weighting system for the
DVOP and LVER performance measures that takes into account the
difficulty of serving veterans with particular barriers to employment;
* develop legislative proposals for appropriate changes to the
definitions of veterans across employment and training programs to
ensure consistency; and:
* ensure that Labor moves forward with an impact evaluation for the one-
stop system under WIA as we recommended in 2004, and that the
evaluation's sampling methodology includes veterans in sufficient
numbers to allow analysis of the impact of services to veterans in the
one-stop system, including those served by the DVOP and LVER programs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. In
its comments, Labor generally concurred with our findings, conclusions,
and recommendations and expressed appreciation that the report
acknowledges the steps the agency has taken to improve the quality of
performance data and better understand outcomes for veterans. Labor
noted that it is considering adopting a different approach to measuring
outcomes for the DVOP and LVER programs by program year 2008--one that
may take into account the similar veteran populations served, as well
as outreach to employers. As it develops this new approach, Labor
reported that it will also introduce a system of weighted measures that
will emphasize services to veterans with barriers to employment. These
changes will coincide with the implementation of Labor's proposed
integrated data system, WISPR. Labor also noted that it would work with
states and grantees to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. In
addition, Labor stated that it intends to pursue a WIA impact
evaluation, which will allow for analysis of services to sub-
populations, including veterans. Labor reported that our recommendation
to develop proposals for changing veteran definitions across employment
and training programs must be evaluated with the input of other
agencies. Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated
where appropriate. Labor's comments are reproduced in full in appendix
IV.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties and will make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Other contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the extent to which
DVOP and LVER performance information reflects services and outcomes
for veterans served by these programs, (2) the extent to which
performance information on veterans served by other key programs is
comprehensive and well integrated across programs in the one-stop
system, and (3) what Labor is doing to improve the quality of
performance data and better understand outcomes for veteran job
seekers.
To address these objectives, we:
* conducted a nationwide Web-based survey to state workforce
administrators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia;
* conducted site visits to 3 states, during which we interviewed state
and federal officials, one-stop managers, and program staff;
* interviewed Labor officials from both the Veterans' Employment and
Training Service (VETS) and the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA);
* analyzed relevant performance data from ETA and VETS; and:
* reviewed our previous work on attributes of successful performance
measures.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between May 2006 and April 2007.
Survey:
To obtain further information on our objectives, we surveyed state
workforce administrators from November 15 to December 27, 2006. The
survey addressed all three objectives and included questions about
performance information for the DVOP and LVER programs, integration of
data across employment programs serving veterans, and efforts to ensure
data quality.
We developed the survey based on knowledge obtained during our
preliminary research. This included a literature review and initial
interviews with officials from the Department of Labor, the National
Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA), and the state of New
Hampshire, where we conducted our initial site visit. We then obtained
a list of state workforce administrators from NASWA. We asked state
administrators to provide information on the DVOP and LVER programs'
capacity, other programs within the one-stop system that serve veteran
job seekers, performance measures and data; and challenges to managing
the programs. To determine whether respondents would understand the
questions as intended, we pretested the survey with state officials in
5 states. We then made changes to the questions based on comments we
received during the pretests.
The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic Web-based
questionnaires. We sent notification of the survey to the 50 states and
the District of Columbia in November 2006 and followed up with e-mail
messages and telephone calls as necessary during November and December.
All 51 recipients submitted their responses by the end of December
2006, providing us with a response rate of 100 percent. We did not
independently verify information obtained through the survey. During
our data analysis we held three follow-up conversations to fill in gaps
from incomplete survey information.
Because this survey was not a sample survey, there are no sampling
errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey
may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or how
the data are entered into a database can introduce unwanted variability
into the survey results. We took steps during survey development, data
collection, and data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For
example, we pretested the questionnaire to ensure that questions were
clear and understandable. Since this was a Web-based survey in which
respondents entered their responses directly into out database, there
was little possibility of data entry error. During data analysis, a
second, independent analyst checked all computer programming. Also, to
the extent possible, we compared both closed and open ended survey
responses with our site visit observations. While survey results are
also subject to different types of systematic errors or bias, we do not
have reason to believe that respondents falsely reported any
information for this survey.
Site Visits:
To obtain a detailed understanding of how veteran job seekers are
served by the one-stop system and how their information is captured, we
conducted visits to three states: New Hampshire, California, and
Tennessee. We selected these states based on a range of selection
criteria, including geographic dispersion, state size and veteran
demographics, recent state performance in veterans' programs, and
recommendations by Labor and NASWA. Our site visits at the state level
included interviews with state workforce agency officials and state
directors of Veterans' Employment and Training. We also chose two local
one-stops in each state and met with local managers and veteran program
staff (see table 6).
Table 6: States and Local Areas in Our Study:
State site visits: New Hampshire;
Local area: New Hampshire Works;
City: Concord.
Local area: New Hampshire Works;
City: Manchester.
State site visits: California;
Local area: Mark Sanders Sacramento Midtown One-Stop Career Center;
City: Sacramento.
Local area: San Diego South Metro Career Center;
City: San Diego.
State site visits: Tennessee;
Local area: Clarksville/Montgomery County Career Center;
City: Clarksville.
Local area: Middle Tennessee Career Center;
City: Murfreesboro.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
During each interview, we used standard interview protocols to obtain
detailed and comparable information. In our interview with state
workforce officials, we discussed the role of the state workforce
agency in administering veterans' employment and training programs,
details about the programs serving veteran job seekers, views on the
current performance accountability system, and information about data
collection and validation. In our interviews with the state directors
and their staff, we discussed their oversight roles and
responsibilities, relationship with the state workforce agency, and
views on the current performance accountability system and data
collection. At the local one-stops, we discussed the coordination of
veteran staff with other programs within the one-stop system, priority
of service, and data collection and reporting. In each state, we also
received a tutorial of the state's data collection software. We
conducted our site visits between July and November 2006.
Research and Experts:
As part of our work, we interviewed officials of ETA and VETS,
including all six Regional Administrators of VETS. We conducted these
telephone interviews in the following locations: Boston, Atlanta,
Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. During each
interview, we obtained information on regional differences in
administering the DVOP and LVER programs, views on the current
performance measures, and information on Labor's monitoring role in
each state.
We also analyzed performance data from the DVOP, LVER, and Employment
Service programs and reviewed Labor's guidance. In addition, we
reviewed relevant literature, including our past work on attributes of
successful performance measures. We also interviewed representatives of
NASWA and two private-sector staffing agencies.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of State Performance in the DVOP and LVER Programs
for Benchmark Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for Program Year
2006:
The following tables include:
* baseline performance data by state for the DVOP and LVER programs
from benchmark program year 2005 (July 1, 2005-June 30, 2006) and:
* negotiated goals by state for the following year, program year 2006.
Labor and states did not negotiate goals for the DVOP or LVER programs
for program year 2005, which was a baseline year for performance under
the new common measures. Four performance measures contribute to each
program's performance. For the DVOP program, there is one set of
measures for all veterans and one set for disabled veterans. For the
LVER program, there is a set of measures for all veterans and another
set for recently separated veterans. Each set of measures includes:
* entered employment rate (EER): the number of participants who are
employed in the first quarter after the exit quarter divided by the
number of participants who exit during the quarter and:
* employment retention rate (ERR): the number of participants who are
employed in both the second and third quarters after the exit quarter
divided by the number of adult participants who exit during the
quarter.
These figures were provided by the Department of Labor. GAO has not
verified the accuracy or reliability of these data.
Table 7: Summary of State Performance in the DVOP Program for Benchmark
Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006:
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Alabama;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 79%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Alaska;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 47%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 50%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 78%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Arizona;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 77%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Arkansas;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 70%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: California;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 49%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 47%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 72%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 73%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Colorado;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
63%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 72%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Connecticut;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 43%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 46%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 75%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Delaware;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 63%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 87%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 88%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: District of Columbia;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 44%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 78%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Florida;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 61%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 77%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Georgia;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 70%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
70%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 62%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 62%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Hawaii;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
72%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 47%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 76%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Idaho;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Illinois;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 86%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 85%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Indiana;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 69%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 50%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 79%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Iowa;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
87%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 62%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 72%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 86%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Kansas;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
69%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 83%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Kentucky;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Louisiana;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 74%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Maine;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 63%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 77%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Maryland;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 82%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Massachusetts;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 48%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 48%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 81%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Michigan;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 78%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Minnesota;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
62%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 49%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 81%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Mississippi;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 49%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 48%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 79%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Missouri;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 61%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Montana;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 61%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
70%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 65%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 83%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Nebraska;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 62%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 81%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Nevada;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 72%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
71%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 79%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: New Hampshire;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: New Jersey;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 50%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 42%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 73%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: New Mexico;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 40%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 37%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: New York;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 61%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
61%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 89%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: North Carolina;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 72%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 71%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 76%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: North Dakota;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
69%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
89%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 79%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Ohio;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 65%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 82%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Oklahoma;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 77%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Oregon;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 78%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 42%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 46%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 76%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Pennsylvania;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 47%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 77%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Puerto Rico;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 11%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 8%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
51%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 6%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 50%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 9%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 51%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Rhode Island;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 45%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 35%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 33%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 58%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 38%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 68%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: South Carolina;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
63%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 59%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 82%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: South Dakota;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
70%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 83%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 86%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Tennessee;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 62%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Texas;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
63%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 85%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 55%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 86%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 82%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Utah;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
57%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 53%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 79%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Vermont;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 79%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 87%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
73%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 82%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 77%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 72%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 87%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Virginia;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 76%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
70%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 92%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
87%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 71%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 91%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 73%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Washington;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 71%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
68%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 85%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
86%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 67%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 64%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 86%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: West Virginia;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 65%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 84%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
88%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 60%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 74%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 85%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Wisconsin;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 65%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
75%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 89%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
85%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 56%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 70%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 87%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 88%.
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): State: Wyoming;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal EER:
54%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2005 achieved
ERR: 81%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): All veterans: 2006 goal ERR:
80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 66%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
EER: 52%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP): Disabled veterans: 2006 goal
ERR: 80%.
Source: Labor.
Note: All years refer to program years.
[End of table]
Table 8: Summary of State Performance in the LVER Program for Benchmark
Program Year 2005 and Negotiated Goals for Program Year 2006:
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Alabama;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Alaska;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 49%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 75%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Arizona;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 51%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 51%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 70%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Arkansas;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 82%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: California;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 53%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 52%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 78%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Colorado;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 72%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 74%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Connecticut;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 52%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 75%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 56%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 76%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Delaware;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 77%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: District of
Columbia;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 75%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 56%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 76%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Florida;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 79%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Georgia;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 79%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Hawaii;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 47%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 49%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 40%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 41%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 75%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Idaho;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 72%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 78%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 84%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Illinois;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 56%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Indiana;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 77%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Iowa;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 85%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Kansas;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 75%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 84%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Kentucky;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Louisiana;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 57%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 57%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 74%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Maine;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Maryland;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 88%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 90%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Massachusetts;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 75%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Michigan;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 57%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 78%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 79%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Minnesota;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Mississippi;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 46%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 56%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Missouri;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 82%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Montana;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 53%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 53%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 72%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 83%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Nebraska;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 82%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Nevada;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: New Hampshire;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: New Jersey;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 51%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 76%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: New Mexico;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 42%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 41%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 56%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 78%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: New York;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: North Carolina;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 55%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 49%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 78%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: North Dakota;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 72%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 82%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Ohio;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 90%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 85%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Oklahoma;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 79%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Oregon;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 57%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 57%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 78%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Pennsylvania;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 81%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Puerto Rico;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 0%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 52%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 10%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 0%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 50%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 9%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 51%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Rhode Island;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 33%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 58%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 47%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 35%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 59%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 40%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 57%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: South Carolina;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 83%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 83%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: South Dakota;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 72%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 57%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 86%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 76%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Tennessee;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 80%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Texas;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 63%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 87%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 82%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Utah;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 61%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 79%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Vermont;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 73%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 72%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 74%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Virginia;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 75%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 92%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 88%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 69%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 60%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Washington;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 74%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 87%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 87%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: West Virginia;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 66%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 65%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 86%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 73%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Wisconsin;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 64%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 71%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 89%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 84%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 88%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 81%.
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): State: Wyoming;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved EER: 68%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2005
achieved ERR: 77%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): All veterans: 2006
goal ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal EER: 62%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Local Veterans Employment Representative (LVER): Recently separated
veterans: 2006 goal ERR: 82%.
Source: Labor.
Note: All years refer to program years.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary of State-Negotiated Goals and Performance for
Veterans in the Employment Service, Program Year 2005:
This table illustrates the negotiated goals and performance achieved by
each state for program year 2005 for veterans in the Wagner-Peyser-
funded Employment Service. It includes the entered employment and
employment retention rates for all veterans and disabled veterans
within the Employment Service, including those in the DVOP and LVER
programs.
These figures were provided by the Department of Labor. GAO has not
verified the accuracy or reliability of these data.
Table 9: State-Negotiated Goals and Performance for Veterans in the
Employment Service, Program Year 2005:
Employment Service: State: Alabama;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 60%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 76%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 76%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%.
Employment Service: State: Alaska;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 48%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%.
Employment Service: State: Arizona;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 74%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 56%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 68%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: Arkansas;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 63%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: California;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 52%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 49%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 47%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 68%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%.
Employment Service: State: Colorado;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 60%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 76%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%.
Employment Service: State: Connecticut;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 57%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 56%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 66%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 49%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 66%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%.
Employment Service: State: Delaware;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 55%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 50%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%.
Employment Service: State: District of Columbia;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 71%.
Employment Service: State: Florida;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 55%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: Georgia;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 65%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 68%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 65%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%.
Employment Service: State: Hawaii;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 46%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 49%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 41%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 68%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 76%.
Employment Service: State: Idaho;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 50%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 71%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 71%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 43%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 65%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%.
Employment Service: State: Illinois;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 44%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 63%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 40%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%.
Employment Service: State: Indiana;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 68%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 46%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%.
Employment Service: State: Iowa;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 56%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%.
Employment Service: State: Kansas;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 56%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%.
Employment Service: State: Kentucky;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 63%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%.
Employment Service: State: Louisiana;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 60%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 60%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 60%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%.
Employment Service: State: Maine;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 64%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 68%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: Maryland;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: Massachusetts;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 57%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 48%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 47%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 74%.
Employment Service: State: Michigan;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 48%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 57%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 43%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 51%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 71%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%.
Employment Service: State: Minnesota;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 49%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 48%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 71%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%.
Employment Service: State: Mississippi;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 62%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 49%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 61%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 55%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 48%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 61%.
Employment Service: State: Missouri;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 62%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 52%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: Montana;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 46%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 44%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 46%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 39%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%.
Employment Service: State: Nebraska;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 63%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 76%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 55%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 74%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%.
Employment Service: State: Nevada;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 68%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%.
Employment Service: State: New Hampshire;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 67%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 67%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 62%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 66%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%.
Employment Service: State: New Jersey;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 55%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 51%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 74%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 43%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 74%.
Employment Service: State: New Mexico;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 45%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 42%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%.
Employment Service: State: New York;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 56%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 52%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 78%.
Employment Service: State: North Carolina;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 54%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 74%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 49%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 75%.
Employment Service: State: North Dakota;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 63%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 60%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 83%.
Employment Service: State: Ohio;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 57%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 65%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 51%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 74%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%.
Employment Service: State: Oklahoma;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 60%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 64%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 56%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 65%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 77%.
Employment Service: State: Oregon;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 55%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 57%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 48%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 46%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 76%.
Employment Service: State: Pennsylvania;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: NDA;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: NDA;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 52%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: NDA;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: NDA.
Employment Service: State: Puerto Rico;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: NDP;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: NDA;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: NDP;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: NDA;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: NDP;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: NDA;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: NDP;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: NDA.
Employment Service: State: Rhode Island;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: DNV;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: DNV;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 52%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: DNV;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: DNV.
Employment Service: State: South Carolina;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 64%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%.
Employment Service: State: South Dakota;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 64%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 69%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%.
Employment Service: State: Tennessee;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 53%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 49%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 70%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 79%.
Employment Service: State: Texas;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 56%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 65%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 50%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 55%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 77%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 86%.
Employment Service: State: Utah;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 57%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 84%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 51%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 59%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 74%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%.
Employment Service: State: Vermont;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 59%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 73%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 82%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 54%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 76%.
Employment Service: State: Virginia;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 56%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 76%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 92%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 52%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 91%.
Employment Service: State: Washington;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 50%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 70%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 80%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 44%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 67%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 79%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%.
Employment Service: State: West Virginia;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 66%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 85%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 61%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 72%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 81%.
Employment Service: State: Wisconsin;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 52%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 63%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 76%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 89%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 46%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: 56%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 73%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: 87%.
Employment Service: State: Wyoming;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal EER: 58%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved EER: NDA;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 75%;
Employment Service: All veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: NDA;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal EER: 48%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved EER: NDA;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 goal ERR: 78%;
Employment Service: Disabled veterans: 2005 achieved ERR: NDA.
Source: Labor.
Notes: NDA = No data available / NDP = No data provided / DNV = Data
not valid.
All years refer to program years.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
May 14 2001:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report "Veterans'
Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve Information on
Reemployment Services, Outcomes and Program Impact" (GAO-07-594). The
Department of Labor (DOL) generally concurs with the findings of this
report and is pleased that the report indicates that DOL has clearly
taken steps to improve the quality of performance data and help to
better understand outcomes for veterans.
Our agencies, the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) and
the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), have primary
responsibility for implementing changes to reporting outcomes and
setting measures of performance for the State Workforce Agencies, the
primary provider for labor exchange services required by the Jobs for
Veterans Act (JVA) and the Wagner-Peyser Act and workforce preparation
services through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), respectively. The
key provisions of JVA applicable to our agencies have complementary
implications that require ongoing close coordination. For those
reasons, we are again jointly sharing responsibility for these
comments, which are generally structured within the framework of the
five Recommendations for Executive Action. VETS has responded to those
expressly relating to the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP)
specialists and Local Veterans' Employment Representative (LVER) staff,
while ETA has responded to the two recommendations regarding the
evaluation of services through the One-Stop Career Center system and
the planned integrated data reporting system.
Ensure that States are given adequate direction and sufficient time to
implement ETA's planned integrated data reporting system and make
necessary changes.
The Department will continue to work with states and grantees to ensure
a smooth transition to and implementation of its proposed Workforce
Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting (WISPR) System once it has
been approved.
Consolidate all performance measures for the DVOP and LVER programs,
including those for disabled and recently separated veterans.
DOL is considering a restructuring of its performance measures to
coincide with the changes brought about by the WISPR report
implementation expected to take place in Program Year (PY) 2008. The
GAO findings support that DVOP and LVER staff have served a similar
share of the client base. VETS intends to consider adopting a different
approach to grant-based measurement that also captures the business
relations role that was expressed in JVA for LVER staff.
During the next program year, VETS intends to develop those new
standards and issue guidance in time to permit negotiation of new grant-
based performance measures with Jobs for Veterans State Grant
recipients for PY 2008.
Comply with JVA's requirement to implement a weighted system for the
DVOP and LVER performance measures that takes into account the
difficulty of serving veterans with particular barriers to employment.
DOL concurs with the recommendation that introducing a weighted
measures system could, in practice, serve as an incentive to
concentrate efforts on those veterans presenting barriers to
employment. VETS has acknowledged that services to those who present
barriers to employment should be given greater weight. Past efforts to
apply weights were confounded by changes and limitations in reporting
that we believe the implementation of WISPR will allow VETS to
overcome. Therefore, as VETS implements changes to its grant-based
measures, it will also develop a system of weighted measures and will
prepare guidance in time to permit negotiation of weighted performance
targets for PY 2008 with Jobs for Veterans State Grantees.
Develop legislative proposals for appropriate changes to the definition
of veterans across employment and training program to ensure
consistency.
This recommendation must be evaluated with the input of all of the
agencies that administer employment and training programs that involve
veterans.
Ensure that Labor moves forward with an impact evaluation for the One-
Stop system under WIA.to allow analysis of the impact of services to
veterans in the One-Stop system, including those served by the DVOP and
LVER programs.
ETA intends to pursue a WIA impact evaluation. The sampling methodology
design will produce sample sizes sufficient to conduct sub-group
analysis of impact of services, which will include veterans.
Additionally, and in the short term, ETA is initiating a qualitative
evaluation of the priority of service (POS) provision of the Jobs for
Veterans Act (JVA) of 2002. The purpose of the evaluation study is to
examine the application of the priority of service provision of the JVA
by the workforce investment system, as defined by the Workforce
Investment Act, and to meet JVA requirements to provide a report to
Congress annually evaluating whether veterans are receiving priority of
service and are being fully served by qualified job training programs.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charles S. Ciccolella:
Assistant Secretary Veterans' Employment and Training:
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Dianne Blank, Assistant Director Rebecca Woiwode, Analyst-in-Charge:
Chris Morehouse and Beth Faraguna made significant contributions to
this report in all facets of the work. In addition, Walter Vance
assisted in the design of the national survey; Gloria Hernandez-
Saunders helped with data analysis; Meeta Engle lent subject matter
expertise; Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard provided legal support;
and Charlie Willson provided writing assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure
Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible. GAO-06-496.
Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Greater Accountability and
Other Labor Actions Needed to Better Serve Veterans. GAO-06-357T.
Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2006.
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.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.
Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Preliminary Observations on
Changes to Veterans' Employment Programs. GAO-05-662T. Washington,
D.C.: May 12, 2005.
Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships.
GAO-05-739SP. Washington, D.C.: May 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.
Performance Reporting: Few Agencies Reported on the Completeness and
Reliability of Performance Data. GAO-02-372. Washington, D.C.: April
26, 2002.
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.
The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual
Performance Plans. GAO/GGD-10.1.20. Washington, D.C.: April 1998.
Agencies' Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act: An Assessment
Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking. GAO/GDD/AIMD-
10.1.18. Washington, D.C.: February 1998.
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.
FOOTNOTES
[1] See the following GAO reports: The Results Act: An Evaluator's
Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20
(Washington D.C.: April 1998); Agencies' Annual Performance Plans under
the Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional
Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18 (Washington, D.C: February 1998);
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
[2] The Trade Adjustment Assistance program is the primary federal
employment and training program serving workers from the manufacturing
sector who are dislocated due to trade.
[3] Prior to JVA, Title 38 provided that there was to be one DVOP for
each 7,400 veterans in a state and prescribed 11 functions for DVOP to
carry out in providing services to eligible veterans. Similarly, Title
38 formerly provided that, in any fiscal year, funding should be
available for 1,600 full-time LVER staff and prescribed 13 functions to
be performed by the LVER staff.
[4] Veterans were required to receive priority of service in the
Employment Service before JVA was enacted.
[5] 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).
[6] See appendix II for a state-by-state list of negotiated and
achieved performance goals for the programs.
[7] Because UI wage records only contain aggregate quarterly earnings
for individuals, it was necessary for Labor to change the way the
measures were calculated.
[8] For more information on TAA outcome data, see GAO, Trade Adjustment
Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance Data Are
Complete, Accurate, and Accessible, GAO-06-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
25, 2006).
[9] Veterans discharged because of service-connected disabilities and
members of reserve components who have served on active duty during a
war or designated campaign are not subject to a 180-day requirement.
[10] 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).
[11] For more information on the WIA data validation process, see GAO,
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005).
[12] GAO-06-82.
[13] According to Labor officials, joint compliance visits have been
conducted in three states to date: Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.
[14] Battelle Memorial Institute, Assessment of Unemployed Veterans'
Needs for the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training
Service, PSC Contract No. 282-98-0019, Task Order No. 7, Battelle
Project Number FG465407 (Arlington, Virginia: November 30, 2003).
[15] 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).
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:
