Veterans' Benefits
Improvements Needed in VA's Training and Performance Management Systems Gao ID: GAO-08-1126T September 18, 2008The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) disability claims process has long been a subject of concern because of long waits for decisions and large backlogs of claims pending decisions. To address these issues, VA has hired almost 3,000 new claims processors since January 2007. However, adequate training and performance management are essential to developing highly competent disability claims processors and ensuring that experienced staff maintain the skills needed to issue timely, accurate, and consistent decisions. The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, House Veterans' Affairs Committee asked GAO to present its views on 1) VA's training for its claims processors and 2) VA's performance management of this staff. This statement is based on a May 2008 report on VA's training and performance management (GAO-08-561) and has been updated as appropriate.
Training for VA disability claims processors complies with some accepted training practices, but VA does not adequately evaluate its training and may have opportunities to improve training design and implementation. VA has a highly structured, three-phase training program for new staff and an 80-hour annual training requirement for all staff. GAO found that VA has taken steps to plan this training strategically and that its training program for new staff appears well-designed and conforms to adult learning principles. However, while VA collects some feedback on training for new staff, it does not collect feedback on all the training conducted at its regional offices. Moreover, both new and experienced staff reported problems with their training. Some new staff told us a computer-based learning tool is too theoretical and often out of date. More experienced staff said they struggled to meet the annual 80-hour training requirement because of workload pressures or could not always find courses relevant given their experience level. Finally, the agency does not hold claims processors accountable for meeting the annual training requirement. VA's performance management system for claims processing staff generally conforms to accepted practices. For example, individual performance measures, such as quality and productivity, are aligned with the agency's organizational performance measures, and VA provides staff with regular performance feedback. However, the system may not clearly differentiate among staff performance levels. In each of the regional offices we visited, at least 90 percent of claims processors were placed in just two of five overall performance categories. Broad, overlapping performance categories may deprive managers of the information they need to reward top performers and address performance issues, as well as deprive staff of the feedback they need to improve
GAO-08-1126T, Veterans' Benefits: Improvements Needed in VA's Training and Performance Management Systems
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1126T
entitled 'Veterans' Benefits: Improvements Needed in VA's Training and
Performance Management Systems' which was released on September 18,
2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 18, 2008:
Veterans' Benefits:
Improvements Needed in VA's Training and Performance Management
Systems:
Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
GAO-08-1126T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1126T, a testimony to Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House
of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Veterans Affairs‘ (VA) disability claims process has
long been a subject of concern because of long waits for decisions and
large backlogs of claims pending decisions. To address these issues, VA
has hired almost 3,000 new claims processors since January 2007.
However, adequate training and performance management are essential to
developing highly competent disability claims processors and ensuring
that experienced staff maintain the skills needed to issue timely,
accurate, and consistent decisions.
The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, House
Veterans‘ Affairs Committee asked GAO to present its views on 1) VA‘s
training for its claims processors and 2) VA‘s performance management
of this staff. This statement is based on a May 2008 report on VA‘s
training and performance management (GAO-08-561) and has been updated
as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
Training for VA disability claims processors complies with some
accepted training practices, but VA does not adequately evaluate its
training and may have opportunities to improve training design and
implementation. VA has a highly structured, three-phase training
program for new staff and an 80-hour annual training requirement for
all staff. GAO found that VA has taken steps to plan this training
strategically and that its training program for new staff appears well-
designed and conforms to adult learning principles. However, while VA
collects some feedback on training for new staff, it does not collect
feedback on all the training conducted at its regional offices.
Moreover, both new and experienced staff reported problems with their
training. Some new staff told us a computer-based learning tool is too
theoretical and often out of date. More experienced staff said they
struggled to meet the annual 80-hour training requirement because of
workload pressures or could not always find courses relevant given
their experience level. Finally, the agency does not hold claims
processors accountable for meeting the annual training requirement.
VA‘s performance management system for claims processing staff
generally conforms to accepted practices. For example, individual
performance measures, such as quality and productivity, are aligned
with the agency‘s organizational performance measures, and VA provides
staff with regular performance feedback. However, the system may not
clearly differentiate among staff performance levels. In each of the
regional offices we visited, at least 90 percent of claims processors
were placed in just two of five overall performance categories. Broad,
overlapping performance categories may deprive managers of the
information they need to reward top performers and address performance
issues, as well as deprive staff of the feedback they need to improve.
Figure: Fiscal Year 2007 Appraisals for Four Offices Were Concentrated
in Two Categories:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Office: Atlanta;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 81%;
Excellent: 10%;
Outstanding: 9%.
Office: Baltimore;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 66%;
Excellent: 10%;
Outstanding: 24%.
Office: Milwaukee;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 70%;
Excellent: 2%;
Outstanding: 28%.
Office: Portland;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 72%;
Excellent: 2%;
Outstanding: 26%.
Source: VBA regional offices.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
In its May report, GAO recommended that VA collect feedback from staff
on the training provided in the regional offices and use this feedback
to improve training; hold staff accountable for meeting their training
requirement; and assess, and if necessary adjust its process for
placing staff in overall performance categories. VA concurred with
these recommendations, but has not yet reported any significant
progress in implementing them.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1126T]. For more
information, contact Daniel Berton at (202) 512-7215 or
bertonid@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on training and
performance management for Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA)
disability claims processors. In fiscal year 2007, VA paid about $37.5
billion in benefits to more than 3.6 million veterans and their
families. The disability claims process has long been a subject of
concern for VA, the Congress, and veterans' service organizations due
to long waits for decisions, large backlogs of pending claims, and
problems with the accuracy and consistency of decisions. Moreover, we
have noted that VA's current disability process is in urgent need of re-
examination and transformation, especially in regard to how it assesses
the work capacity of individuals with disabilities in today's world and
in its ability to provide timely and appropriate benefits. With an
increase in claims resulting from injuries sustained in Iraq and
Afghanistan and from an aging veteran population, these issues will
likely persist. To address them, VA added almost 3,000 new claims
processors from January 2007 to July 2008 and has plans to add even
more staff by the end of September 2008. Earlier this year, I testified
before this subcommittee that enlarging VA's disability workforce is
likely to produce certain human capital challenges for the agency.
[Footnote 1] More staff alone will not guarantee effective disability
claims processing. Among other things, adequate training and
performance management are essential to developing highly competent new
disability claims processors and ensuring that experienced staff
maintain the skills needed to issue timely, accurate, and consistent
disability decisions.
My remarks today primarily draw from our May 2008 report for the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and focus on 1) VA's training for its
disability claims processing staff and 2) its performance management
system for claims processors. We conducted our work in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.[Footnote 2] For this
testimony, we updated information from our report, as appropriate, to
reflect the current status of VA training and performance management
systems.
In summary, although we found that training for VA disability claims
processors complies with some accepted training practices, it is not
adequately evaluated, and some aspects of training design and
implementation could be improved. We found that VA has taken steps to
strategically plan its training, including the establishment of a
training board to evaluate the agency's training needs. Also, VA's
training program for new staff appears well-designed and conforms with
adult learning principles. However, while VA collects feedback on many
of the training methods and tools for new staff, not all the training
VA conducts is evaluated to determine how relevant or effective it is.
Moreover, both new and experienced staff reported problems with their
training. Some new staff members reported that a computer-based
learning tool was not useful. Also, VA requires 80 hours of training
annually for all claims processors, but some experienced claims
processors struggled to meet this requirement because of workload
pressures, and some could not always find relevant courses. It is not
clear what criteria VA uses to justify the number of required training
hours. Furthermore, individual claims processors are not held
accountable for meeting the annual training requirement, although
according to VA, the agency has implemented a new learning management
system allowing it to monitor staff's completion of the training
requirement.
VA's performance management system for claims processing staff
generally conforms to accepted performance management practices. For
example, individual performance measures, such as quality and
productivity, are aligned with the agency's organizational performance
measures, and VA provides claims processing staff with regular feedback
on their performance. However, the system may not clearly differentiate
among performance levels. Broad, overlapping performance categories may
deprive managers of the information they need to reward top performers
and address performance issues, as well as deprive staff of the
feedback they need to improve.
Background:
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) within VA administers the
disability compensation and pension programs, whereby VA claims
processing staff assess veterans' applications for disability
compensation and pension benefits. Aside from benefits for veterans,
VBA claims processing staff make eligibility determinations for
deceased veterans' spouses, children, and parents. In short, they are
responsible for ensuring that the decisions that lead to paying
disability compensation and pension benefits are timely, accurate, and
consistent.
The VA disability claims process involves multiple steps and usually
involves more than one claims processor. When a veteran submits a claim
to one of VBA's 57 regional offices, staff in that office are
responsible for obtaining evidence to evaluate the claim, such as
medical and military service records; determining whether the claimant
is eligible for benefits; and assigning a disability rating specifying
the severity of each of the veteran's impairments. These ratings
determine the amount of benefits eligible veterans will receive.
VA has faced questions about the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency
of its disability decisions. GAO designated federal disability
programs, including VA and other programs, as a high-risk area in 2003.
In particular, our prior work found VA relied on outmoded criteria for
determining program eligibility that did not fully reflect advances in
medicine and technology or changes in the labor market. As a result,
VA's disability program may not recognize an individual's full
potential to work. In addition, VA has seen processing times for their
disability claims increase over the past several years, and
inconsistencies in disability decisions across locations have raised
questions about fairness and integrity.
Some have suggested that VA needs to address its training and guidance
related to claims processing in order to improve consistency and that
it should conduct periodic evaluations of decisions to ensure the
accuracy of ratings across disability categories and regions. VA has
reported that some of the inconsistency in its decisions is due to
complex claims, such as those involving post-traumatic stress disorder,
but it has also acknowledged that the accuracy and consistency of
claims decisions needs further improvement.
Training Complies with Some Accepted Practices, but VBA Does Not
Adequately Evaluate Training and May Be Falling Short in Training
Design and Implementation:
To prepare newly hired staff to perform the tasks associated with
processing disability claims, VBA has developed a highly structured,
three-phase program designed to deliver standardized training. The
first phase is designed to lay the foundation for future training by
introducing new staff to topics such as medical terminology and the
computer applications used to process and track claims. The second
provides an overview of the technical aspects of claims processing,
including records management, how to review medical records, and how to
interpret a medical exam. The third includes a combination of
classroom, on-the-job, and computer-based trainings. The second and
third phases in this program are designed to both introduce new
material and reinforce material from the previous phase.
To help ensure that claims processing staff continually maintain their
knowledge after their initial training and keep up with changing
policies and procedures, VBA's Compensation and Pension Service
requires all claims processing staff to complete a minimum of 80 hours
of technical training annually. This training requirement can be met
through a mix of classroom instruction, electronic-based training from
sources such as the Training and Performance Support System (TPSS), or
guest lecturers. VBA's regional offices have some flexibility over what
courses they provide to their staff to help them meet the training
requirement. These courses can cover such topics as establishing
veteran status, asbestos claims development, and eye-vision issues.
We found that VBA has taken some steps to strategically plan its
training for claims processors in accordance with generally accepted
training practices identified in our prior work.[Footnote 3] For
example, VBA has taken steps to align training with the agency's
mission and goals. In 2004, VBA established an Employee Training and
Learning Board (board) to, among other things, ensure that the agency's
training decisions support its strategic and business plans, goals, and
objectives. Also, VBA has identified the skills and competencies needed
by its claims processing staff by developing a decision tree and task
analysis of the claims process. In addition, VBA has taken steps to
determine the appropriate level of investment in training and to
prioritize funding. The board's responsibilities include developing an
annual training budget and recommending training initiatives to the
Under Secretary of Benefits. Further, we found that VBA's training
program for new claims processing staff appears well-designed, in that
it conforms to adult learning principles by carefully defining all
pertinent terms and concepts and providing abundant and realistic
examples of claims work.
However, while VBA has developed a system to collect feedback from new
claims processing staff on their training, the agency does not
consistently collect feedback on all of the training it provides. For
example, none of the regional offices we visited consistently collected
feedback on the training they conduct. Without feedback on regional
office training, VBA may not be aware of how effective all of its
training tools are.
Moreover, both new and experienced claims processing staff we
interviewed reported some issues with their training. A number of staff
told us the TPSS was difficult to use, often out-of-date, and too
theoretical. Some claims processing staff with more experience reported
that they struggled to meet the annual training requirement because of
workload pressures or that training topics were not always relevant for
staff with their level of experience. VBA officials reported that they
have reviewed the 80-hour training requirement to determine if it is
appropriate, but they could not identify the criteria or any analysis
that were used to make this determination. Identifying the right amount
of training is crucial. An overly burdensome training requirement may
needlessly take staff away from essential claims processing duties,
while too little training could contribute to processing and quality
errors.
In addition to lacking a clear process for assessing the
appropriateness of the 80-hour training requirement, VBA also has no
policy outlining consequences for individual staff who do not complete
the requirement. Because it does not hold staff accountable, VBA is
missing an opportunity to clearly convey to staff the importance of
managing their time to meet training requirements, as well as
production and accuracy goals. In fiscal year 2008, VBA implemented a
new learning management system that allows it to track the training
hours completed by individual staff. Although VBA now has the capacity
to monitor staff's completion of the training requirement, the agency
has not indicated any specific consequences for staff who fail to meet
the requirement.
VA's Performance Management System Generally Conforms with Accepted
Practices, but May Not Clearly Differentiate among Staff's Performance
Levels:
VA's performance management system for claims processors is consistent
with a number of accepted practices for effective performance
management systems in the public sector.[Footnote 4] For example, the
elements used to evaluate individual claims processors--such as
quality, productivity, and workload management--appear to be generally
aligned with VBA's organizational performance measures. Aligning
individual and organizational performance measures helps staff see the
connection between their daily work activities and their organization's
goals and the importance of their roles and responsibilities in helping
to achieve these goals. VA also requires supervisors to provide claims
processors with regular feedback on their performance, and it has
actively involved its employees and other stakeholders in developing
its performance management system.
However, VA's system may not be consistent with a key accepted
practice--clear differentiation among staff performance levels. We have
previously reported that, in order to provide meaningful distinctions
in performance for experienced staff, agencies should preferably use
rating systems with four or five performance categories.[Footnote 5] If
staff members' ratings are concentrated in just one or two of multiple
categories, the system may not be making meaningful distinctions in
performance. Systems that do not make meaningful distinctions in
performance fail to give (1) employees the constructive feedback they
need to improve and (2) managers the information they need to reward
top performers and address performance issues.
VA's performance appraisal system has the potential to clearly
differentiate among staff performance levels. Each fiscal year,
regional offices give their staff a rating on each individual
performance element: exceptional, fully successful, or less than fully
successful. For example, a staff member might be rated exceptional on
quality, fully successful on productivity, and so forth. Some elements
are considered critical elements, and some are considered noncritical.
Staff members are then assigned to one of five overall performance
categories, ranging from unsatisfactory to outstanding, based on a
formula that converts a staff member's combination of ratings on the
individual performance elements into an overall performance category
(see fig. 1).
Figure 1: VA Overall Performance Appraisal Formula:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the VA Overall Performance Appraisal
Formula, as follows:
Ratings on critical elements: All exceptionals; and:
Ratings on noncritical elements: All exceptionals; yields:
Overall performance category: Outstanding.
Ratings on critical elements: All exceptionals; and:
Ratings on noncritical elements: One or more fully successful(s), all
others exceptional(s); yields:
Overall performance category: Excellent.
Ratings on critical elements: One or more fully successful(s), all
others exceptionals; and:
Ratings on noncritical elements: All fully successfuls or exceptionals;
yields:
Overall performance category: Fully successful.
Ratings on critical elements: All fully successfuls or exceptionals;
and:
Ratings on noncritical elements: One or more less than fully
successful(s); yields:
Overall performance category: Minimally satisfactory.
Ratings on critical elements: One or more less than fully
successful(s);
Ratings on noncritical elements: [Blank]; yields:
Overall performance category: Unsatisfactory.
Source: GAO analysis of VBA information.
[End of figure]
However, there is evidence to suggest that the performance management
system for claims processing staff may not clearly or accurately
differentiate among staff's performance. Central office officials and
managers in two of the four regional offices we visited said that,
under the formula for assigning overall performance categories, it is
more difficult to place staff in certain overall performance categories
than in others--even if staff's performance truly does fall within that
category. These managers said it is especially difficult for staff to
be placed in the excellent category. In fact, at least 90 percent of
all claims processors in the regional offices we visited ended up in
only two of the five performance categories in fiscal year 2007: fully
successful and outstanding (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Fiscal Year 2007 Overall Performance Ratings for Claims
Processors in Four Regional Offices Were Concentrated in the
Outstanding and Fully Successful Categories:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Office: Atlanta;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 81%;
Excellent: 10%;
Outstanding: 9%.
Office: Baltimore;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 66%;
Excellent: 10%;
Outstanding: 24%.
Office: Milwaukee;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 70%;
Excellent: 2%;
Outstanding: 28%.
Office: Portland;
Unsatisfactory: 0;
Minimally satisfactory: 0;
Fully successful: 72%;
Excellent: 2%;
Outstanding: 26%.
Source: VBA regional offices.
[End of figure]
Some managers told us that there are staff whose performance is better
than fully successful but not quite outstanding, but that under VA's
formula, it is difficult for these staff to be placed in the excellent
category. To be placed in the excellent category, a staff member must
be rated exceptional in all the critical elements and fully successful
in at least one noncritical element. However, managers told us that
virtually all staff who are exceptional in the critical elements are
also exceptional in the noncritical elements, and they are
appropriately placed in the outstanding category. On the other hand, if
a staff member is rated fully successful on just one critical element,
even if all other elements are rated as exceptional, the staff member's
overall performance category falls from outstanding to fully
successful.
Neither VBA nor VA central office officials have examined the
distribution of claims processing staff across the five overall
performance categories. However, VA has acknowledged that there may be
an issue with its formula, and the agency is considering changes to its
performance management system designed to allow for greater
differentiation in performance. Absent additional examination of the
distribution of claims processors among overall performance categories,
VA lacks a clear picture of whether its system is working as intended
and whether any adjustments are needed.
In conclusion, VA appears to have recognized the importance of
developing and maintaining high performing claims processors. It needs
to devote more attention, however, to ensuring that its training and
performance management systems are better aligned to equip both new and
experienced staff to handle a burgeoning workload. Specifically, in our
May 2008 report, we recommended that VA should collect feedback from
staff on training provided in the regional offices in order to assess
issues such as the appropriateness of the 80-hour annual training
requirement and the usefulness of TPSS. We also recommended that the
agency should use information from its new learning management system
to hold staff members accountable for meeting the training requirement.
In addition, we recommended that VA should assess whether its
performance management system is making meaningful distinctions in
performance. In its comments on our May 2008 report, VA concurred with
our recommendations, but it has not yet reported making any significant
progress in implementing them.
While hiring, training, and evaluating the performance of staff is
essential, commensurate attention should be focused on reviewing and
aligning disability benefits and service outcomes to today's world. In
prior work, we have noted that VA and other federal disability programs
must adopt a more modern understanding of how technology and labor
market changes determine an individual's eligibility for benefits, as
well as the timing and portfolio of support services they are provided.
To the extent progress is made in this area, effective training and
performance management systems will be of crucial importance. Moreover,
the way VA's larger workforce is distributed and aligned nationwide can
also significantly impact the degree to which it succeeds in meeting
the agency's responsibilities to veterans in the future. In short, VA
should seize this opportunity to think more strategically about where
to best deploy its new staff and how to develop and maintain their
skills.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-
7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Also contributing to this statement were
Clarita Mrena, Lorin Obler, David Forgosh, and Susan Bernstein.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Veterans' Benefits: Improved Management Would Enhance VA's Pension
Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-112].
Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2008.
Veterans' Disability Benefits: Claims Processing Challenges Persist,
while VA Continues to Take Steps to Address Them. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-473T]. Washington, D.C.:
February 14, 2008.
Disabled Veterans' Employment: Additional Planning, Monitoring, and
Data Collection Efforts Would Improve Assistance. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1020]. Washington, D.C.:
September 12, 2007.
Veterans' Benefits: Improvements Needed in the Reporting and Use of
Data on the Accuracy of Disability Claims Decisions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1045]. Washington, D.C.:
September 30, 2003.
Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-893G]. Washington, D.C.: July 2003.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual
Performance and Organizational Success. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488]. Washington D.C.: March
14, 2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans
Affairs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-110].
Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003.
Veterans' Benefits: Claims Processing Timeliness Performance Measures
Could Be Improved. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-
282]. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2002.
Veterans' Benefits: Quality Assurance for Disability Claims and Appeals
Processing Can Be Further Improved. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-806]. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 2002.
Veterans' Benefits: Training for Claims Processors Needs Evaluation.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-601]. Washington,
D.C.: May 31, 2001.
Veterans Benefits Claims: Further Improvements Needed in Claims-
Processing Accuracy. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-99-35]. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 1999.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Veterans' Disability Benefits: Claims Processing Challenges
Persist, While VA Continues to Take Steps to Address Them, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-473T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
14, 2008).
[2] GAO, Veterans' Benefits: Increased Focus on Evaluation and
Accountability Would Enhance Training and Performance Management for
Claims Processors, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-
561] (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2008).
[3] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March
2004).
[4] GAO, Results Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
14, 2003).
[5] GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on the
Administration's Draft Proposed "Working for America Act," [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-142T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
5, 2005).
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
