VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Better Incentives, Workforce Planning, and Performance Reporting Could Improve Program Gao ID: GAO-09-34 January 26, 2009In 2004, the Veterans Affairs' Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program was reviewed by a VR&E Task Force. It recommended numerous changes, in particular focusing on employment through a new Five-Track service delivery model and increasing program capacity. Since then, VR&E has worked to implement these recommendations. To help Congress understand whether VR&E is now better prepared to meet the needs of veterans with disabilities, GAO was asked to determine (1) how the implementation of the Five-Track Employment Process has affected VR&E's focus on employment, (2) the extent to which VR&E has taken steps to improve its capacity, and (3) how program outcomes are reported. GAO interviewed officials from VR&E, the 2004 Task Force, and veteran organizations; visited four VR&E offices; surveyed all VR&E officers; and analyzed agency data and reports.
By launching the Five-Track Employment Process, VR&E has strengthened its focus on employment, but program incentives have not been updated to reflect this emphasis. VR&E has delineated its services into five tracks to accommodate the different needs of veterans, such as those who need immediate employment as opposed to those who need training to meet their career goal. However, program incentives remain directed toward education and training. Veterans who receive those services collect an allowance, but those who opt exclusively for employment services do not. While VR&E officials said they believed it would be helpful to better align incentives with the employment mission, they have not yet taken steps to address this issue. VR&E has improved its capacity to provide services by increasing its collaboration with other organizations and by hiring more staff, but it lacks a strategic approach to workforce planning. Although there have been staff increases, many of VR&E's regional offices still reported staff and skill shortages. The program is not addressing these workforce problems with strategic planning practices that GAO's prior work has identified as essential. For example, VR&E officials have not fully determined the correct number of staff and the skills they need to serve current and future veterans. VA does not adequately report program outcomes, which could limit understanding of the program's performance. Specifically, it reports one overall rehabilitation rate for veterans pursuing employment and those trying to live independently. Computing each group's success rate for fiscal year 2008, GAO found a lower rate of success for the majority seeking employment and a higher rate of success for the minority seeking independent living than the overall rate. GAO also found that VR&E changed the way it calculates the rehabilitation rate in fiscal year 2006, without acknowledgments in key agency reports. VA noted the change in its fiscal year 2006 performance report, but did not do so for its fiscal year 2007 and 2008 reports, or for its fiscal year 2008and 2009 budget submissions. Such omissions could lead to misinterpretation of program performance over time.
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-09-34, VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment: Better Incentives, Workforce Planning, and Performance Reporting Could Improve Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-34
entitled 'VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment: Better
Incentives, Workforce Planning, and Performance Reporting Could Improve
Program' which was released on January 26, 2009.
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 Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2009:
VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment:
Better Incentives, Workforce Planning, and Performance Reporting Could
Improve Program:
[The Web version of this report was reposted on June 25, 2009, to reflect
a change on page 10, figure 2. Percentages in figure 2 and the language
in the paragraph above it have been revised.]
GAO-09-34:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-34, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 2004, the Veterans Affairs‘ Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
(VR&E) program was reviewed by a VR&E Task Force. It recommended
numerous changes, in particular focusing on employment through a new
Five-Track service delivery model and increasing program capacity.
Since then, VR&E has worked to implement these recommendations. To help
Congress understand whether VR&E is now better prepared to meet the
needs of veterans with disabilities, GAO was asked to determine (1) how
the implementation of the Five-Track Employment Process has affected
VR&E‘s focus on employment, (2) the extent to which VR&E has taken
steps to improve its capacity, and (3) how program outcomes are
reported. GAO interviewed officials from VR&E, the 2004 Task Force, and
veteran organizations; visited four VR&E offices; surveyed all VR&E
officers; and analyzed agency data and reports.
What GAO Found:
By launching the Five-Track Employment Process, VR&E has strengthened
its focus on employment, but program incentives have not been updated
to reflect this emphasis. VR&E has delineated its services into five
tracks to accommodate the different needs of veterans, such as those
who need immediate employment as opposed to those who need training to
meet their career goal. However, program incentives remain directed
toward education and training. Veterans who receive those services
collect an allowance, but those who opt exclusively for employment
services do not. While VR&E officials said they believed it would be
helpful to better align incentives with the employment mission, they
have not yet taken steps to address this issue.
VR&E has improved its capacity to provide services by increasing its
collaboration with other organizations and by hiring more staff, but it
lacks a strategic approach to workforce planning. Although there have
been staff increases, many of VR&E‘s regional offices still reported
staff and skill shortages. The program is not addressing these
workforce problems with strategic planning practices that GAO‘s prior
work has identified as essential. For example, VR&E officials have not
fully determined the correct number of staff and the skills they need
to serve current and future veterans.
VA does not adequately report program outcomes, which could limit
understanding of the program‘s performance. Specifically, it reports
one overall rehabilitation rate for veterans pursuing employment and
those trying to live independently. Computing each group‘s success rate
for fiscal year 2008, GAO found a lower rate of success for the
majority seeking employment and a higher rate of success for the
minority seeking independent living than the overall rate. GAO also
found that VR&E changed the way it calculates the rehabilitation rate
in fiscal year 2006, without acknowledgments in key agency reports. VA
noted the change in its fiscal year 2006 performance report, but did
not do so for its fiscal year 2007 and 2008 reports, or for its fiscal
year 2008 and 2009 budget submissions. Such omissions could lead to
misinterpretation of program performance over time.
Figure: The Overall Rehabilitation Rate and the Success Rates for
Veterans Seeking either Employment or Independent Living for FY 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Employment rate: 73%;
Independent living rate: 92%;
Overall rehabilitation rate: 75%.
Source: GAO analysis of VA summary data.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To ensure VR&E can meet the needs of veterans, GAO recommends that VR&E
consider cost-effective options to align the program‘s financial
incentives with its employment mission as well as engage in a strategic
workforce planning process that collects and uses relevant data.
Additionally, GAO recommends that VA improve the transparency of
reports on VR&E program performance. VA generally agreed with the
recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-34]. For more
information, contact Daniel Bertoni, (202) 512-7215, bertonid@gao.gov.
[End of figure]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
VR&E Has Strengthened Its Focus on Employment through the Five-Track
Employment Process, but Has Not Updated Its Incentive Structure to
Align with Its Mission:
VR&E Has Collaborated with Other Organizations and Added Staff, but
Lacks a Strategic Approach to Workforce Planning:
Performance and Budget Reports Lack Important Information about VR&E
Program Outcomes:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from Veterans Affairs:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Figures:
Figure 1: Five-Track Employment Process:
Figure 2: Percentage of Veterans Entering Each of the Five Tracks from
January 2007 to May 2008:
Figure 3: Percentage of VR&E Regional Offices Reporting Staff and Skill
Shortages:
Figure 4: The Overall Rehabilitation Rate and the Success Rates for
Veterans Seeking either Employment or Independent Living for FY 2008:
Figure 5: Calculations for the Old and New Rehabilitation Rates for FY
2006:
Figure 6: VR&E's Performance Trend with and without the FY 2006 Change
to the Rehabilitation Rate:
Abbreviations:
BDN: Benefits Delivery Network:
CHTW: Coming Home to Work:
CSAVR: Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation:
CWT: Compensated Work Therapy:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DTAP: Disabled Transition Assistance Program:
Labor: Department of Labor:
MRG: maximum rehabilitation gain:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
VETS: Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
VR&E: Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 26, 2009:
Congressional Requesters:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) program helps veterans who have service-connected
disabilities and employment barriers obtain employment or live
independently if employment is not currently feasible. VR&E's services
are particularly critical now that more than 33,000 military
servicemembers have been wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.
Many are surviving with multiple serious injuries and illnesses,
including amputations, traumatic brain injury, and post-traumatic
stress disorder. While some servicemembers will be able to remain on
active duty, others will need comprehensive services as they transition
into civilian life and work. According to the 2007 Veterans' Disability
Benefits Commission, the VR&E program is pivotal in helping veterans
make this transition.
While the program's historical focus was to provide training for
veterans, legislation in 1980 changed the mission to ensuring that
veterans obtain and maintain suitable employment to the maximum extent
possible or achieve independence in daily living. Since then, we, along
with others who have reviewed the program, have repeatedly raised
concerns about the ability of VR&E to fully meet this charge.[Footnote
1] In 2004, a VR&E Task Force, chartered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, issued a comprehensive report with more than 100
recommendations. Key concerns included VR&E's lack of emphasis on
employment early in the rehabilitation process and its limited capacity
to manage its workload. To refocus VR&E's organization and make it
responsive to the needs of 21st century veterans, the Task Force
recommended, among other actions, that VR&E implement a new service
delivery approach through a Five-Track Employment Process to focus on
employment early in the rehabilitation process and give veterans five
different program options to achieve employment based on their
individual needs. The Task Force also recommended expanding
collaboration with other organizations and increasing staffing levels
at the central and regional offices to increase capacity. Since 2004,
VR&E has redesigned its program around the Task Force's
recommendations.
At your request we reviewed (1) how the implementation of the Five-
Track Employment Process has affected VR&E's focus on employment, (2)
the extent to which VR&E has taken steps to improve its capacity, and
(3) how program outcomes are reported. To assess how the Five-Track
process has affected VR&E's focus on employment and the extent to which
VR&E has taken steps to improve its capacity, we evaluated VR&E's
implementation of key recommendations from the 2004 Task Force by
interviewing VR&E officials, Task Force members, and veteran service
organization representatives as well as reviewing agency documents. We
also conducted site visits to four of VA's regional offices--Houston,
Tex.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Seattle, Wash.; and St. Petersburg, Fla. We
selected our site visit locations based on several criteria including
their proximity to major military installations, the number of program
participants, and overall performance scores on various VR&E management
reports. Additionally, we surveyed the VR&E officers in all 57 regional
offices regarding their workload. To review how program outcomes are
reported, we examined the agency's annual performance and
accountability reports and congressional budget submissions. We also
analyzed data from VR&E's Corporate WINRS database and VA's Benefits
Delivery Network (BDN). Before doing so, we assessed the reliability of
the data and found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this analysis. See appendix I for more information regarding our
methods.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to January 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
By launching the Five-Track Employment Process, VR&E has strengthened
its focus on employment, but veterans' incentives have not been updated
to reflect this emphasis. In response to a recommendation by the 2004
Task Force, VR&E delineated its existing services into five distinct
tracks to provide a stronger focus on employment early in the
rehabilitation process and accommodate the different needs of veterans,
such as those who need immediate employment as opposed to those who
need training to meet their career goal. Despite VR&E's efforts to
emphasize employment, program incentives remain primarily focused on
education and training. While veterans who participate in education and
training programs receive a monthly allowance, those who use VR&E for
assistance with immediate employment do not. Senior VR&E officials told
us it may be advantageous to align incentives with the program's
employment mission by providing an allowance to veterans who want to
return to work right away, but they had not yet taken steps to address
this issue.
VR&E has made some progress improving its capacity to serve veterans by
increasing its collaboration with other organizations and by adding
staff, but it lacks a strategic approach to workforce planning. Over
the last few years, VR&E has engaged in a number of collaborative
initiatives with other organizations to provide early intervention,
rehabilitation, and employment services. For example, VR&E has expanded
its partnership with the Department of Labor and established an
agreement with the national coordinating body for state vocational
rehabilitation agencies to improve services and increase employment for
veterans. VR&E has also added staff at its central and regional
offices. However, many VR&E regional office staff reported they still
do not have enough staff with the right skills. For example, 54 percent
of all 57 regional offices reported they have fewer counselors than
they need and 40 percent said they have fewer employment coordinators
than they need. Additionally, 30 percent of the regional offices
reported that the skills of their counselors no more than moderately
meet the needs of the veterans they serve and 30 percent reported the
same for their employment coordinators. Nevertheless, VR&E officials
have not yet addressed these problems with workforce planning practices
that our prior work has identified as essential. For example, about 90
percent of the regional offices we surveyed reported that their
caseloads have become more complex since veterans began returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq; yet, the program has not comprehensively defined
the critical skills and competencies staff need to serve these
veterans. Additionally, VR&E does not make use of relevant data, such
as the number of veterans who apply each year for VA disability
benefits, in order to project its future workload and overall staffing
needs.
VA's performance and budget reports lack important information about
the outcomes of the VR&E program, which could limit understanding of
the program's performance. VA does not report specific performance
information for the two different groups of veterans VR&E serves--those
seeking employment and those seeking to live independently; and,
further, it has not adequately disclosed a change to its primary
performance measure. Although the program serves both types of
veterans, VA reports an overall rehabilitation rate for all
participants. We found that this single performance measure masks
individual outcomes for each of these groups, which could hinder
oversight. For example, VA reported an overall rehabilitation rate of
76 percent for fiscal year 2008. However, when we computed the rates
for each group separately, we found that 73 percent of veterans seeking
employment were successful and 92 percent of veterans seeking
independent living were successful. Specific information on success
rates for each group would enable Congress and others to better
understand that those participants with employment goals--the majority
of people in the program--have a lower success rate than the overall
rate currently reported. Likewise, this information would enable those
overseeing the program to understand that the minority of participants
with independent living goals have a much higher success rate than the
reported overall rate. A senior VR&E official told us the program had
recently begun tracking each group, and another official told us that
the program is considering reporting separate rates for each group.
Finally, VA has not adequately disclosed a significant change in the
calculation of the overall rehabilitation rate. In fiscal year 2006,
VR&E changed the way it calculated the overall rehabilitation rate to
exclude certain veterans who did not complete the program. This change
allowed VR&E to achieve a higher rehabilitation rate and subsequently
meet its program performance goals. While federal agencies are
permitted to alter their performance measures, VA did not report this
calculation change in several key reports that included graphics and
tables depicting performance trends--an omission that could allow for
some misinterpretation of its performance.
We are making several recommendations for executive action. We
recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct VR&E to (1)
consider cost-effective options for better aligning the program's
financial incentives with its employment mission, (2) engage in a
strategic workforce planning process that collects and uses relevant
data, and (3) enhance the transparency of performance and budget
reports by taking actions such as separately reporting both the annual
percentage of veterans who obtain employment and the percentage of
those who achieve independent living, and fully disclosing changes in
performance measure calculations when reporting trend data in key
performance and budget reports. We provided VA with a draft of this
report; the agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
Background:
Since the 1940s, VA has provided vocational rehabilitation assistance
to veterans with service-connected disabilities. In 1980, Congress
enacted the Veterans' Rehabilitation and Education Amendments, which
mandated a change in the mission of VA's vocational rehabilitation
program from primarily providing training to helping veterans find and
maintain employment, or achieve independence in their daily lives if
employment is not currently feasible.[Footnote 2] VA reported that VR&E
served 90,600 participants in fiscal year 2007 at a cost of $722
million.[Footnote 3]
VR&E Structure and Eligibility Requirements:
There are 57 VA regional offices--roughly about 1 in each state--and
about 1,000 VR&E staff who work in these regional offices and at the
program's central office in Washington, D.C.[Footnote 4] VR&E regional
office personnel include rehabilitation counselors, employment
coordinators, and management and support staff who provide personal,
face-to-face services to veterans. VR&E services can include vocational
counseling, vocational evaluation, case management, education and
training, job placement assistance, and independent living services.
VR&E can also pay tuition, subsistence, and other expenses for veterans
pursuing education and training.[Footnote 5] An allowance is provided
to veterans who have completed training programs for up to 2 months as
they seek employment. When necessary, VR&E can also direct veterans to
other vocational and employment counselors and specialists who perform
services under contract. To receive VR&E services, veterans with
disabilities generally must have a 20 percent disability rating and an
employment handicap.[Footnote 6] Veterans with a 10 percent disability
rating may also be entitled to receive services if they have a serious
employment handicap.[Footnote 7] In addition, injured servicemembers
may be eligible for VR&E services before being discharged from the
military if they request a memorandum rating from VA and are found to
have one or more service-connected disabilities that are 20 percent or
higher.[Footnote 8] VR&E vocational rehabilitation counselors determine
entitlement to services, which generally provides a 12-year period of
eligibility and up to 48 months of benefits.[Footnote 9]
Federal and State Programs for Veterans with Disabilities:
VR&E is one of many federal and state programs available to veterans
with disabilities in their transition from the military to civilian
life and work. Injured servicemembers can receive medical treatment
from the Department of Defense (DOD) military treatment facilities or
Veterans Health Administration facilities, such as polytrauma centers,
which may also provide vocational rehabilitation services. Within VA,
the Compensated Work Therapy program primarily helps veterans with
mental health diagnoses by integrating vocational rehabilitation into
their overall medical treatment plan and placing them in jobs. In
addition, VA works with DOD and the Department of Labor (Labor) to
provide presentations to servicemembers being discharged about
veterans' benefits and services through the Transition Assistance
Program and Disabled Transition Assistance Program. Labor's Veterans'
Employment & Training Service (VETS) also provides services to
veterans. Labor and VA have historically worked together to help
veterans with service-connected disabilities transition to the civilian
workforce. Labor administers the VETS program through grants to state
workforce agencies, whose staff provide veterans with reemployment
services, such as job search and placement assistance and also market
veterans to employers. In addition, VR&E works with state vocational
rehabilitation agencies that receive grants from the Rehabilitation
Services Administration at the Department of Education to prepare
individuals with disabilities for employment through vocational
rehabilitation services.
Long-standing Critical Problems:
For more than 25 years, we, along with others who have reviewed the
program, veteran service organizations, and VA, have found shortcomings
in the VR&E program. These reviews generally concluded that the program
had not fulfilled its primary purpose, which is to ensure that veterans
obtain suitable employment. In 1996, we reported that the program
primarily emphasized providing training and did not place enough
emphasis on providing employment services.[Footnote 10] Additionally,
the 1999 Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance found that VR&E had not achieved its statutory
purpose and noted that "employment assistance is the most valuable
service the Nation can provide to personnel transitioning from active
duty to the civilian workforce."[Footnote 11] In 2003, we designated
federal disability programs, including those at VA, as high risk
because they had difficulty managing their programs and were in need of
transformation.[Footnote 12]
A more recent and comprehensive review of VR&E conducted by the 2004
VR&E Task Force cited the same overriding problems in its report and
made many recommendations.[Footnote 13] In 2004, we reviewed and
generally agreed with the Task Force's main findings.[Footnote 14] VR&E
officials told us that, as of September 2008, they had implemented 88
of the Task Force's 110 recommendations.
VR&E Has Strengthened Its Focus on Employment through the Five-Track
Employment Process, but Has Not Updated Its Incentive Structure to
Align with Its Mission:
In response to recommendations from the 2004 Task Force, VR&E has
implemented the Five-Track Employment Process and strengthened the
program's focus on employment. However, VR&E's incentive structure for
veterans remains primarily aligned with education and training
programs, with no financial incentive for those seeking immediate
employment.
VR&E Has Implemented Its Five-Track Employment Process and Strengthened
Its Focus on Employment:
In response to the 2004 Task Force report, VR&E implemented the Five-
Track process by delineating its existing services into five distinct
tracks to provide a stronger focus on employment early in the
rehabilitation process. The delineation of program services into five
tracks is designed to accommodate the different needs of veterans, such
as those who need immediate employment as opposed to those who need
training to meet their career goal. Figure 1 provides details on each
of the five tracks.
Figure 1: Five-Track Employment Process:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the Five-Track Employment Process, as
follows:
Veteran with service-connected disability:
Employment track: (1) Reemployment;
Targeted veteran: Separating from active duty and returning to work for
previous employer;
Track features: May include reemployment rights advice and job
accommodations/modifications;
Rehabilitated criteria: Complete employment program goals and maintain
suitable job for 60 days.
Employment track: (2) Rapid access to employment;
Targeted veteran: Seeking employment immediately or possessing skills
to be competitive in an appropriate occupation;
Track features: May include job readiness preparation, job search
assistance, and post-job follow-up;
Rehabilitated criteria: Complete employment program goals and maintain
suitable job for 60 days.
Employment track: (3) Self-employment;
Targeted veteran: Having limited access to traditional employment due
to disabling condition or other life circumstances;
Track features: May include analysis of business concept, development
of business plan, marketing, and financial assistance;
Rehabilitated criteria: Complete self-employment program goal and
maintain viable business for 1 year.
Employment track: (4) Employment through long-term services;
Targeted veteran: Needs specialized training or education to
obtain/maintain suitable employment;
Track features: May include on-the-job training, public/private job
partnering, and formal education;
Rehabilitated criteria: Complete employment program goals and maintain
suitable job for 60 days.
Employment track: (5) Independent living;
Targeted veteran: Unable to immediately work and needing rehabilitation
services to live more independently;
Track features: May include assistive technology and independent living
skills training;
Rehabilitated criteria: Attain independent living goals and achieve
maximum independence in daily living.
The completion of the process leads to: Suitable employment or
independent living.
Source: GAO analysis of VA criteria and Art Explosion.
[End of figure]
After veterans apply to the program and are found eligible for
services, they are introduced to the Five-Track process through a
program orientation. During orientation, VR&E shows a video that
explains the process to veterans and emphasizes that the goal of the
program is to obtain employment or to achieve independent living if
employment is not immediately feasible. At the sites we visited, we
found that VR&E staff also verbally reinforced to veterans during
orientation that the primary goal of the program is employment.
Following orientation and evaluation, veterans are assisted by VR&E staff in selecting a track that meets their needs and employment goals. Some of the rehabilitation counselors we interviewed told us the factors they consider when evaluating veterans for track selection include veterans‘ transferable job skills, results on various vocational tests, and how the veterans‘ disabilities affect their ability to do the work they did in the past. Of the almost 24,000 veterans with a documented track selection who began a plan of services from January 2007 to early May 2008, we found that more than three-quarters chose to pursue employment through the long-term services track, which includes education and training, while less than one-tenth chose more immediate employment through the reemployment or rapid access to employment tracks, and slightly more than one-tenth entered the independent living track. Very few veterans chose self-employment (less than 1 percent).[Footnote 15] See figure 2 for the percentages of veterans who entered each of the five tracks.
Figure 2: Percentage of Veterans Entering Each of the Five Tracks from
January 2007 to May 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Percentage of Veterans Entering Each of the Five Tracks from January
2007 to May 2008:
Employment through long-term services: 80% (18,913);
Independent living: 11% (2,720);
Rapid access to employment: 7% (1,705);
Reemployment: 1% (325);
Self-employment 0.5% (106).
Source: GAO analysis of VA Corporate WINRS data.
Note: Chart represents each veteran‘s most recent completion of VR&E‘s evaluation and planning phase followed by a plan of services from January 1, 2007, through May 6, 2008. For the period evaluated, almost percent of these veterans did not have a track assignment indicated in the database, which a VR&E official said may be due to the fact that track selection is not a mandatory data field. Additionally, the chart represents the most recently entered track selection for each veteraas of May 6, 2008, because the database does not maintain a historical record for veterans who change tracks. Sum of percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Also as part of the Five-Track process, VR&E established an employment
coordinator position and job labs to assist veterans with preparing for
and finding employment. Employment coordinators assess veterans'
readiness to seek employment, develop relationships with employers, and
help place veterans in jobs. VR&E's job labs provide computers with
employment-related software that VR&E staff and veterans can use for
activities such as developing job search plans, preparing for
interviews, and writing resumes.
Incentives for Veterans Remain Primarily Aligned with Training:
Though the Five-Track Employment Process was intended to modernize the
program and increase VR&E's emphasis on employment, VR&E did not update
its financial incentive structure to align with its mission.
Specifically, the program offers a monthly subsistence allowance only
to those veterans who are enrolled in education or training, but not to
those who receive employment services only.[Footnote 16] For example, a
veteran who has two dependents and enrolls in a full-time education or
training program receives approximately $760 in monthly assistance.
That veteran would continue to receive this allowance for 2 months
following training while he or she seeks employment. One rehabilitation
counselor we spoke with noted that many veterans who have completed
their training rely on this money during the job search phase. In
contrast, veterans who receive employment services only do not receive
a monthly allowance while they look for employment. Our prior work has
noted the need to consider basic program design, particularly those
features that affect individual work incentives and supports, when
modernizing disability programs for the 21st century.[Footnote 17]
Based on our prior work, we are concerned that without properly aligned
incentives and supports, veterans who need assistance finding immediate
employment may not seek out VR&E services and others may not choose the
track that is best suited for them. In our discussions with senior VR&E
officials, they acknowledged that offering financial incentives for
veterans receiving employment services could be beneficial, and noted
that they may review the internal incentive structure as part of a
program evaluation in fiscal year 2009. Additionally, in September
2008, VA released a study on overall veterans' compensation payments
that included several options for changing the subsistence allowance
for VR&E participants.[Footnote 18] However, VA has not yet taken
action to align incentives with the program's employment mission.
VR&E Has Collaborated with Other Organizations and Added Staff, but
Lacks a Strategic Approach to Workforce Planning:
Over the last few years, VR&E has increased its capacity to serve
veterans by engaging in a number of collaborative initiatives with
other organizations and by adding staff to its central and regional
offices. Nevertheless, the program continues to face challenges
ensuring it has the right number of staff with the right skills, and
its workforce planning has not strategically addressed these issues.
VR&E Has Collaborated with Other Organizations on a Number of
Initiatives:
VR&E has increased its collaboration with other organizations such as
federal and state agencies, as well as private and nonprofit employers
through initiatives to help injured servicemembers and disabled
veterans transition to the civilian workforce. Initiatives with DOD
focus on intervention and employment services for injured
servicemembers early in their recovery process, while VR&E's
partnership with VA's Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) program addresses
the vocational rehabilitation needs of veterans who may have mental
illnesses or traumatic brain injury. In addition, VR&E's collaborative
efforts with Labor, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, and
employers provide employment services to veterans who are ready to
enter the job market. VR&E's recent efforts to collaborate with these
organizations are highlighted below.
VR&E and DOD:
VR&E and DOD have stepped up their efforts to expedite early
intervention and employment services for injured servicemembers. For
example:
* In fiscal year 2005, VR&E created a standardized presentation for the
Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP), which informs disabled
servicemembers of the full range of benefits and services available to
them once they leave active duty. VR&E has assigned rehabilitation
counselors or contractors to present this information at DOD
installations and military treatment facilities. According to a senior
VR&E official, VR&E is also increasing outreach to National Guard and
Reserve servicemembers by providing information about this DTAP
briefing at required post-deployment health assessments.
* In fiscal year 2007, VA and DOD began to share information earlier
about seriously injured servicemembers, and VR&E now has access to a
database that allows it to identify and locate them to facilitate early
outreach.[Footnote 19]
* In fiscal year 2008, VR&E rolled out the Coming Home to Work (CHTW)
initiative nationwide. This key component of VR&E's early intervention
efforts provides counseling to individuals on active duty pending
medical separation and rehabilitation services to eligible
servicemembers. According to officials, VR&E has placed 13 full-time
rehabilitation counselors at 12 military treatment facilities to
administer this program and initiate early contact with injured
servicemembers. In addition to these 13 counselors, VR&E has designated
one staff member in each regional office as the program coordinator. As
of August 2008, over 4,000 servicemembers had received counseling
through CHTW and 149 servicemembers who received rehabilitation
services had obtained employment, according to VR&E officials.
VR&E and VA's Compensated Work Therapy (CWT) Program:
In another effort to provide services to seriously injured veterans
early in their treatment process, VR&E has taken steps to develop a
partnership with the CWT program at VA. The CWT program works primarily
with veterans that many VR&E regional officials said their staff had
difficulty serving. Such veterans might have a traumatic brain injury
or mental health diagnosis, or may need more intensive support in the
structured environment CWT provides. CWT's early intervention model
addresses both employment goals and medical rehabilitation needs. Also,
veterans receiving services simultaneously from VR&E and the CWT
program can continue to receive services from CWT even after VR&E
education and training benefits are exhausted, according to officials.
The 2004 Task Force noted the potential advantages of increased
collaboration between VR&E and CWT. According to officials from both
programs:
* VR&E refers veterans to the CWT program. Regional officials at the
four sites we visited said their staff refer veterans to this program
when it is appropriate.
* VR&E and CWT briefed each other's staff at their national training
conferences in fiscal year 2008.
* VR&E plans to provide a 1-hour training session for VR&E staff on the
CWT program via satellite broadcast in fiscal year 2009.
VR&E and Labor:
The Department of Labor is VR&E's primary employment services partner,
and an effective relationship between these agencies is important in
giving disabled veterans the best chance for successful outcomes.
Recent collaborative efforts include the following:
* In fiscal year 2006, VR&E and Labor renewed their existing agreement
to improve employment services to veterans with disabilities.
* In fiscal year 2006, Labor and VR&E implemented some elements of
their renewed agreement by establishing a joint work group at the
national level to develop a set of shared performance measures.
[Footnote 20]
* In fiscal year 2008, Labor and VR&E completed a demonstration project
at eight regional offices to develop and test joint performance
measures, tracking systems, and training curriculums for their staff
who provide employment services to veterans.[Footnote 21]
VR&E and State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies:
The 2004 Task Force highlighted the importance of collaboration between
VR&E and state vocational rehabilitation agencies, noting that state
vocational rehabilitation agencies have established extensive employer
networks and could provide veterans with greater access to employment
opportunities. In addition to these increased employment opportunities,
agency officials also noted that close relationships between VR&E and
these agencies could result in joint rehabilitation plans that can
provide complementary services to veterans. For example, veterans who
are jointly served by VR&E and a state vocational rehabilitation agency
have access to more and different services, such as transportation
assistance or a clothing allowance provided by state agencies, which
may make the difference in a veteran's ability to achieve
rehabilitation and employment goals. According to officials, recent
collaborative efforts with state vocational rehabilitation agencies
have included the following:
* In fiscal year 2004, VR&E and the Council of State Administrators of
Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), a professional association of state
vocational rehabilitation administrators, formally agreed to facilitate
local cooperative agreements between state vocational rehabilitation
agencies and VR&E regional offices. The purpose of these local
agreements is to encourage collaboration that will result in improved
services and increased employment outcomes for disabled veterans.
* In fiscal year 2008, the central office staff of VR&E and CSAVR
exchanged local office contact information.
* In fiscal year 2008, VR&E and state vocational rehabilitation
officials briefed each other's staff at national conferences.
VR&E and Employers:
VR&E has established national agreements with several private, public,
and nonprofit employers to further increase employment opportunities
for veterans. These agreements focus on joint efforts to provide career
opportunities to veterans exiting the VR&E program. VR&E central office
officials said that they inform the regional offices of new national
agreements via monthly conference calls and disseminate copies of the
agreements.
Finally, a senior VR&E official said that the program currently
coordinates individually, as opposed to jointly, with its various
partners--DOD, VA's CWT program, Labor, and state vocational
rehabilitation agencies. This official also noted that VR&E had
recently contributed to a forthcoming report on strategies for building
capacity and tools for improving coordination among federal and state
agencies, including several listed above.[Footnote 22] The report is
expected to identify promising practices for addressing gaps in
services.[Footnote 23]
VR&E Has Added Staff, but Strategic Workforce Planning Has Been
Insufficient:
VR&E has increased staffing at its central and regional offices as
recommended by the 2004 Task Force. Specifically, VR&E officials said
they increased central office staff by 67 percent, from 33 in fiscal
year 2004 to 55 in fiscal year 2008, to address the concern that the
central office needed more resources to provide policy, procedures, and
staff training to the regional offices. At the four sites we visited,
some regional office staff said support and training from the central
office had improved. VR&E also increased its regional office staff by
20 percent, from 917 in fiscal year 2004 to 1,101 in fiscal year 2008.
A senior VR&E official said these new regional office staff include
contracting specialists and counselors, as well as positions to provide
outreach to veterans returning from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Despite these staff increases, the VR&E regional offices still reported
staff and skill shortages on our survey. In terms of staff shortages,
more than half of all 57 regional offices said they have fewer
counselors than they need and more than a third said they have fewer
employment coordinators than they need (see figure 3).[Footnote 24]
Some employment coordinators we interviewed told us it is difficult for
them to provide services to veterans and reach employers throughout
their entire regions, including those in more rural locations.
Exacerbating these staff shortages is the fact that staff time may not
be used efficiently as many regional office staff we interviewed and
surveyed said much of their time was spent on redundant paperwork and
data entry requirements that reduced the amount of time they spent with
veterans. In terms of skill shortages, almost one-third of the regional
offices reported that the skills of their counselors no more than
moderately meet the needs of the veterans they serve and almost one-
third reported the same for their employment coordinators. Moreover, 80
percent of offices said VR&E was somewhat or less prepared to meet the
needs of veterans in the future, and, of these, 12 percent reported
VR&E was unprepared.
Figure 3: Percentage of VR&E Regional Offices Reporting Staff and Skill
Shortages:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Office has fewer counselors than needed for current workload: 54%;
Office has fewer employment coordinators than needed for current
workload: 40%;
Counselors have skills that no more than moderately meet the needs of
the veterans they serve: 30%;
Employment coordinators have skills that no more than moderately meet
the needs of the veterans they serve: 30%.
Source: GAO analysis of our survey data of 57 VR&E regional offices.
[End of figure]
We found that these workforce problems were not being addressed with
some of the strategic planning practices that our prior work has
identified as essential,[Footnote 25] such as:
* Using data to identify current and future human capital needs
including the appropriate number of employees, how they are deployed
across the organization, and existing opportunities to reshape the
workforce by improving current work processes; and:
* Determining the critical skills and competencies staff will need to
successfully achieve the organization's mission and goals, especially
as various factors change the environment in which the organization
operates.
VR&E has not gathered data to identify the number of staff it currently
needs. The 2004 Task Force recommended a study of the time required for
key tasks and VR&E identified the need for such a study in its fiscal
year 2005 - 2008 workforce plan; however, the study has not yet been
conducted. While VR&E officials told us they have plans to fund the
study in fiscal year 2009, they acknowledged that without such
information they do not know whether their current caseload target is
appropriate. Moreover, without knowing what their target caseload
should be, VR&E cannot know the total number of counselors the program
needs. VR&E officials said the current caseload target, which is one
counselor for every 125 veterans, is based on a study of the state
vocational rehabilitation programs, not VR&E's own workloads.
Nevertheless, the state study concluded that a caseload of this size
would leave counselors little time to spend with clients. We learned
from our survey of VR&E regional offices that their estimated average
caseload was one counselor for every 136 veterans.
In addition, the program has not studied its work processes since the
roll-out of the Five-Track process to determine whether and how to
streamline administrative activities to allow staff to use their time
more efficiently. Many survey respondents, as well as staff we
interviewed, reported that administrative paperwork was cumbersome and
labor intensive. According to staff at one regional office, paperwork
requirements were a concern when the Five-Track process was rolled out,
but documentation requirements did not ultimately change and new
paperwork was added. At another regional office, a staff member noted
that the decision regarding a veteran's entitlement to services had to
be documented multiple times. A VR&E central office official said the
program is working to transition to one database, which will reduce
redundant data entry. Additionally, the official said that while new
forms had been added to ensure consistent documentation across all
regional offices, these requirements will be reviewed as part of the
fiscal year 2009 study of counselors' key tasks.
VR&E also does not use relevant data to identify future staffing needs.
While a VR&E official said that the program considers potential factors
such as the impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the only data
used to project future workloads and staff needs are the program's
historical participation rates. Moreover, while VR&E does review the
numbers of new disability claims, this official said these numbers are
not formally factored into its projections nor does the program
routinely determine what proportion of this population subsequently
applies for VR&E services or when they apply. We found a decrease in
the average number of years between a veteran receiving an initial
disability rating and applying for VR&E services from 7.9 years in
fiscal year 2002 to 6.1 years in fiscal year 2007. A VR&E official said
this decrease is expected due to the program's increased outreach to
servicemembers and veterans. VR&E officials said that their past
workload projections had not been far off and, according to VR&E data,
since 2004 their projections have been within 8 percent of actual
program participation. However, new factors may be impacting enrollment
because in fiscal year 2008 the program underestimated the number of
program participants for the first time in several years.
Further, VR&E staffing projections do not account for the numbers of
veterans whose status will likely require more staff time, such as
veterans who need an extended evaluation to determine if employment is
currently feasible. Staff are allocated to the regional offices based,
in part, on the number of veterans whose status will likely take more
of a counselor's time. However, when VR&E prepares its annual budget
request for staff, it considers only total program participants and
does not take into consideration the growing number of cases that
require more staff time due to their complexity. Yet, since the wars
began in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number of veterans who required an
extended evaluation increased by 121 percent.[Footnote 26] While a
senior VR&E official said the model for projecting the program's
overall staff needs is not intended to be the same as the one for
allocating staff to regional offices, a senior VA official acknowledged
that VR&E could improve its workload management with better
projections.
In addition, VR&E officials said they have not fully determined the
critical skills and competencies needed by counselors and employment
coordinators to achieve the program's goals. While officials in 2003
conducted an analysis of job duties and associated tasks for
counselors, this was not an analysis of the skills and competencies
required to perform those tasks or the skills that might be needed in
the future.
Determining the relevant skills and competencies that counselors and
employment coordinators need may be particularly important now, given
the changing needs of veterans. About 90 percent of the regional
offices we surveyed reported that their caseloads have become more
complex since veterans began returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. They
reported dealing with multiple physical injuries as well as traumatic
brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder among veterans
returning from war. One official noted that, while her staff are
skilled, they are not experts in traumatic injuries and psychiatric
conditions, and could benefit from additional training in these areas.
Performance and Budget Reports Lack Important Information about VR&E
Program Outcomes:
VA performance and budget reports lack important information about the
outcomes of the VR&E program. VA does not report specific performance
information for the two different groups of veterans VR&E serves--those
seeking employment and those seeking to live independently. In
addition, it has not adequately disclosed a change to its primary
performance measure. These omissions could lead to some
misinterpretation of the program's performance.
Reports Do Not Show Separate Success Rates for Veterans Seeking
Employment and Independent Living:
Although the VR&E program works with two different groups of veterans,
most of whom are focused on employment with a smaller number seeking
independent living, VA reports an overall rehabilitation rate for all
participants. We found that this single measure masks the individual
outcome for each group of participants and may hinder oversight. For
example, VA reported a rehabilitation rate of 76 percent in fiscal year
2008. When we computed the rates for each group of veterans we found
that 73 percent of those seeking employment were successful, while 92
percent seeking independent living were successful (see figure 4).
Figure 4: The Overall Rehabilitation Rate and the Success Rates for
Veterans Seeking either Employment or Independent Living for FY 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data:
Employment rate: 73%;
Independent living rate: 92%;
Overall rehabilitation rate: 75%.
Source: GAO analysis of VA summary data.
[End of figure]
Information on separate success rates would result in better
information for Congress and others to evaluate program performance and
target services. For example, reporting separate rates would show that
those participants seeking employment--the majority of people in the
program--have a lower success rate than the overall rate currently
reported. Likewise, information on separate success rates would enable
those overseeing the program to understand that the minority of
participants seeking independent living have a much higher success rate
than the reported overall rate.
Both the Task Force and VA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) have
also noted the need for separate employment and independent living
measures.[Footnote 27] The Task Force recommended the use of separate
outcome measures because very different services are often required to
serve those seeking employment versus those seeking independent living.
For example, veterans seeking employment may need career training and
placement, while veterans trying to live independently may need to
learn to use a wheelchair or communicate with an assistive device. VR&E
officials did not implement the recommendation because, according to
officials, the existing rehabilitation rate reflected the outcomes of
all veterans in the program. For its part, VA's OIG specifically
recommended in 2007 that VA performance and accountability reports
include the numbers of veterans who achieve employment and independent
living, given that such outcomes are used for budget and resource
allocation and in testimony to Congress.[Footnote 28] In its 2007
Performance and Accountability Report, VA provided the absolute numbers
of veterans who had found employment (8,252) or achieved independent
living (2,756), but did not offer a separate rate for each program
goal, which would have allowed for a better assessment of VR&E's
progress. During our review, a senior VR&E official acknowledged the
merit of examining separate employment and independent living rates and
said that the program had recently begun internally tracking separate
rates. Another VR&E official told us that the program is considering
developing and reporting separate performance measures for independent
living and employment, but did not have a specific time frame for when
that decision will be finalized.
VA Altered Its Performance Measure without Adequately Disclosing the
Change:
In fiscal year 2006, VR&E changed its rehabilitation performance
measure--the way it calculates the overall rehabilitation rate--without
adequately disclosing this change in several subsequent reports even
though the change substantially increased the rate. VA noted the change
in its fiscal year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, but did
not do so for its subsequent fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
Performance and Accountability Reports, or for its fiscal year 2008 and
fiscal year 2009 budget submissions to Congress.[Footnote 29] These
reports included tables and graphics showing a 10-point increase in the
rehabilitation rate from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. While
federal agencies may change their performance measures, we believe that
not acknowledging the change in subsequent reports could allow for some
misinterpretation of the program's performance over time. Our prior
work on federal performance measures found it useful to acknowledge
such a change to provide a complete picture of program performance.
[Footnote 30]
Prior to fiscal year 2006, VR&E calculated the rehabilitation rate by
comparing the number of veterans who had a rehabilitation plan and
achieved their goal with the total number of veterans who had a
rehabilitation plan and either achieved their goal or discontinued the
program.[Footnote 31] In fiscal year 2006, VR&E began excluding from
the total those veterans who discontinued from the program for reasons
considered beyond VR&E's control (see figure 5). Specifically, VR&E
excludes veterans from the calculation who accept a position
incompatible with their disability; those they consider employable, but
who are no longer seeking employment; and those they consider
unemployable due to medical or psychological reasons.
Figure 5: Calculations for the Old and New Rehabilitation Rates for FY
2006:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the calculations for the old and new
rehabilitation rates for FY 2006, as follows:
Old rehabilitation rate:
(1) Veterans who achieved their goal (12,117);
divided by:
(1) Veterans who achieved their goal (12,117), plus: (2) Veterans who
had a rehabilitation plan, but discontinued the program before
achieving their goal (8,095);
equals: 60%.
New rehabilitation rate:
(1) 12,117;
divided by (1) 12,117 plus [(2) 8,095 minus (3) Veterans who had a
rehabilitation plan, but discontinued the program for reasons that may
have been beyond VR&E's control (3,625);
equals: 73%.
Source: Data provided by VA.
[End of figure]
Prior to the calculation change, VR&E was having limited success
improving its rehabilitation rate and achieving its performance goals
(see figure 6). Changing the calculation enabled VR&E to show a 14-
point increase (from 62 percent in fiscal year 2004 to 76 percent in
fiscal year 2008) in the rehabilitation rate trend in its fiscal year
2008 Performance and Accountability Report. According to our analysis,
the increase would have been 6 points (from 62 percent in fiscal year
2004 to 68 percent in fiscal year 2008) without a change to the
performance measure. Furthermore, the calculation change enabled VR&E
to meet its annual performance goal in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and
2008. We are concerned that this performance data, as currently
reported without an explanation of the calculation change, could convey
a misleading picture of the program's performance over time.
Figure 6: VR&E's Performance Trend with and without the FY 2006 Change
to the Rehabilitation Rate:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Fiscal year: 2004;
VR&E reported rate: 62%;
Annual goal: 67%.
Fiscal year: 2005;
VR&E reported rate: 63%;
Annual goal: 66%.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Rate using calculation prior to fiscal year 2006: 60%;
VR&E reported rate: 73%;
Annual goal: 69%.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Rate using calculation prior to fiscal year 2006: 64%;
VR&E reported rate: 73%;
Annual goal: 73%.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Rate using calculation prior to fiscal year 2006: 68%;
VR&E reported rate: 76%;
Annual goal: 75%.
Source: GAO analysis of VR&E performance data from VA's FY 2008
Performance and Accountability Report and related data from the agency.
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
For more than 20 years, VR&E has sought to modernize its program and
meet its employment mandate. VR&E launched its new Five-Track
Employment Process to better focus on employment; however, critical
aspects of the program have not been aligned with the employment
mission. Given the current incentive structure, veterans who most need
immediate employment services, but could also benefit from some level
of financial assistance, may be at a disadvantage. Moreover, the
incentive structure may result in some veterans not choosing the track
that is best for them and, therefore, foregoing early integration into
the civilian workforce.
VR&E has improved its capacity to serve veterans by stepping up its
collaboration with other organizations and by adding staff. However,
the lack of information about staffing needs could limit VR&E's ability
to provide quality services to veterans returning from the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as to veterans from prior conflicts.
Without a strategic workforce planning process that collects and uses
relevant data to ensure the right number of staff with the appropriate
skills, the VR&E program will continue to face challenges serving
current veterans and could fall short in responding to the needs of
future veterans.
Finally, the lack of transparency in how VA calculates and reports
program performance is detrimental to effective oversight and VR&E's
ability to manage the program. Without transparency in program outcomes
and how performance measures are calculated, Congress and other
stakeholders lack important information that highlights the program's
successes and focuses their attention on its shortcomings. In addition,
VA officials lack essential information to manage and make adjustments
to the program.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure VR&E's employment mission is fully supported, we recommend
that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct VR&E to consider cost-
effective options for better aligning the program's financial
incentives with its employment mission.
To ensure that the current and future needs of veterans are met, we
recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct VR&E to engage
in a strategic workforce planning process that collects and uses
relevant data, such as information on the appropriate counselor
caseload and the critical skills and competencies needed by staff.
To increase transparency in VR&E performance and budget reports, we
recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs take actions such as
separately reporting both the annual percentage of veterans who obtain
employment and the percentage of those who achieve independent living,
and fully disclosing changes in performance measure calculations when
reporting trend data in key performance and budget reports.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to VA for review and comment. The
agency provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix II.
VA generally agreed with our recommendations and noted the steps it
will take to act on them:
* In response to our recommendation that VR&E consider cost-effective
options for better aligning the program's financial incentives with its
employment mission, VA agreed and stated that the current law does not
permit payments of subsistence allowance to veterans receiving only
employment services. Therefore, to address this issue, VR&E has drafted
a legislative proposal for consideration by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
* In response to our recommendation that VR&E engage in a strategic
workforce planning process that collects and uses relevant data, such
as information on the appropriate counselor caseload and the critical
skills and competencies needed by staff, VA agreed and outlined its
plans to implement the recommendation. With regard to collecting and
using information on the appropriate counselor caseload, VA stated that
it plans to complete a study by the end of fiscal year 2010 that will
help it determine the staffing levels necessary to comprehensively meet
veterans' rehabilitation needs. With regard to collecting and using
information on the critical skills and competencies needed by staff, VA
noted that it has already defined the critical skills and competencies
needed for VR&E counselors by requiring them to hold a master's degree
in rehabilitation and has provided training to VR&E staff. While we
acknowledge the value of these efforts, the fact that many regional
offices reported skill shortages on our survey indicates that more
needs to be done in this area, especially given the increasingly
complex needs of the veterans now applying for services. VA did agree
to conduct a skills assessment survey of VR&E staff and indicated that
the survey will determine the skills staff currently possess as well as
the skills staff need to successfully serve veterans. Additionally, VA
agreed to ensure staff training is targeted to the specific skills and
competencies identified on the survey.
* In response to our recommendation that VA separately report the
annual percentage of veterans who obtain employment and the percentage
of those who achieve independent living and fully disclose changes in
performance measures, VA agreed and stated that it will include
employment and independent living rates in the comments of its fiscal
year 2010 budget and fiscal year 2009 Performance and Accountability
Report and will implement separate performance measures in fiscal year
2010. Additionally, VA stated that it would note the year the
rehabilitation rate calculation changed in future budget and
performance and accountability documents.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, relevant congressional committees, and other interested
parties. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, 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 bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Daniel Bertoni, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Richard Burr:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Bob Filner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Steve Buyer:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Hall:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:
Chairwoman:
The Honorable John Boozman:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity:
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Harry Mitchell:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations :
Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jason Altmire:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Michael Arcuri:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bruce Braley:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Christopher Carney:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Kathy Castor:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Yvette Clarke:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Steve Cohen:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Joe Courtney:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Joe Donnelly:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Keith Ellison:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Brad Ellsworth:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Phil Hare:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Baron Hill:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Mazie Hirono:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Paul Hodes:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Hank Johnson:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Steve Kagen, M.D.
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ron Klein:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable David Loebsack:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jerry McNerney:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Chris Murphy:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Patrick Murphy:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ed Perlmutter:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Sarbanes:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Joe Sestak:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Carol Shea-Porter:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Heath Shuler:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Albio Sires:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Zach Space:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Betty Sutton:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John F. Tierney:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Timothy Walz:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Peter Welch:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Charles Wilson:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John Yarmuth:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our review examined (1) how the implementation of the Five-Track
Employment Process has affected the Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment (VR&E) program's focus on employment, (2) the extent to
which VR&E has taken steps to improve its capacity, and (3) how program
outcomes are reported. To address these objectives, we:
* reviewed agency documents and relevant recommendations from key
reports, such as the 2004 VR&E Task Force;
* analyzed data from the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Corporate
WINRS and Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) data systems;
* interviewed VA and VR&E staff knowledgeable about VR&E planning and
operations, and others such as disability experts, members of the 2004
Task Force, veteran service organization representatives, and staff
from agencies and organizations that collaborate with VR&E;
* visited four VA regional offices and conducted interviews with VR&E
officers and staff to observe and gather information on workforce
planning and how services are provided to veterans; and:
* conducted a survey of VR&E officers at all 57 regional offices to
follow up on several key issues relevant to our research objectives.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to January 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Review of Key Documentation:
To evaluate our objectives, we reviewed agency documentation and prior
evaluations of the VR&E program and recommendations made by the 2004
VR&E Task Force, key commissions, the VA Office of Inspector General,
as well as our own previous work. To evaluate how the Five-Track
Employment Process has affected VR&E's focus on employment and the
extent to which VR&E has taken steps to improve its capacity, we
identified key recommendations from the 2004 Task Force report by
reviewing and selecting recommendations related to the following areas:
program focus on employment; workforce and workload management;
collaboration with outside agencies and organizations; and performance
measures. We assessed VR&E's implementation of completed
recommendations and reviewed recommendations it had not yet completed.
We also referred to our previous work on strategic workforce planning
[Footnote 32] and the Office of Personnel Management's Human Capital
Assessment and Accountability Framework. To evaluate reports on VR&E's
program outcomes, we reviewed recent agency performance data in VA's
fiscal year 2006, 2007, and 2008 annual performance and accountability
reports and congressional budget submissions for fiscal years 2008 and
2009.
Review of VA Data on Veterans' Case Statuses, Employment Track Usage,
and Program Performance:
We used data from VA's Corporate WINRS case management system and its
BDN system to evaluate the number of veterans in each case status, the
number of veteran's enrolled in each of the five tracks, the amount of
time between veterans receiving an initial disability rating and
applying for VR&E services, and VR&E program outcomes reporting. To
evaluate the number of veterans in each case status over time, we used
BDN fiscal year-end national reports from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal
year 2007 to capture changes since the beginning of the conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq. We also analyzed BDN and Corporate WINRS data to
determine the change in the average length of time between a veteran
receiving an initial disability rating and applying for VR&E services
from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2007. We began our analysis with
fiscal year 2002 because an agency official told us that regional
office data were uploaded into the Corporate WINRS database in fiscal
year 2001 making data prior to fiscal year 2002 less reliable. For
performance outcomes reporting, we analyzed data from fiscal year 2004
through fiscal year 2008, as these were the years of data reported in
the agency's fiscal year 2008 Performance and Accountability Report.
To assess the reliability of this data, we performed the following
steps: (1) reviewed the existing information about the data and the
system that produced them, (2) observed data entry and reviewed input
controls, (3) performed electronic testing of required data fields, and
(4) interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and
systems. For BDN data, we also reviewed the programming logic that was
used to produce selected workload data and applied the same logic
contained in the programming against a file of raw data. We were able
to replicate two workload indicators that we chose to examine. This
gave us reasonable assurance that the automated BDN reports were
reliable.
Agency officials said there are two sources of data that contain
information about VR&E participant case histories. This information is
contained in both the BDN and in Corporate WINRS. Corporate WINRS is
the interface that VR&E counselors use and that data updates BDN data
in most cases. To determine rehabilitation rates, VR&E uses three
variables indicating whether a case is rehabilitated, discontinued,
and/or has achieved a maximum rehabilitation gain (MRG). These three
designations are derived for each VR&E applicant based on Corporate
WINRS case history and then stored in a summary file. This summary data
is then used to calculate rehabilitation rates. We usually choose to
examine raw data instead of summary data. In this case, an ideal test
would be to examine the raw Corporate WINRS data and see if we came up
with the same designations evidenced in this summary level data.
However, complexities associated with the business rules used to
establish the key designations in the summary data (as rehabilitated,
discontinued, and/or MRG) prevented us from calculating the
rehabilitation rate using the full case history data. For this reason,
we requested that VR&E provide us the summary data that it used to
calculate its rehabilitation rate. We then used this summary data to
verify its rehabilitation rate reports and to calculate (1) the success
rates of veterans who had a plan to achieve independent living or had a
plan to become employed and (2) how the agency would have performed if
it had not changed its rehabilitation rate calculation.
To verify the summary data, we discussed with agency officials the
algorithms they used to create the case-level summary data. In
addition, we drew a random sample of 65 summary data records and looked
at the raw case history data for each to see if the designations
contained in the summary data complied with the algorithms VR&E
described. During this examination, we found one case where the raw
data did not support the summary-level data designation. This allowed
us to conclude with 95 percent confidence that these problems represent
no more than a 7.1 percent rate of error in the summary data. In
addition, although the Corporate WINRS data for this case did not have
the correct reason code to support the MRG designation, an examination
of BDN data (the alternate data source that contains participant case
information) did contain the correct reason code and supported the MRG
designation. Based on our assessment, we determined that the Corporate
WINRS data used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report.
VA Regional Office Site Visits:
To assess the capacity of the regional offices, we conducted site
visits to four of VA's regional offices--Houston, Tex.; Pittsburgh,
Pa.; Seattle, Wash.; and St. Petersburg, Fla. We also visited four
satellite offices, three that serve more rural areas, in Erie, Pa.;
Spokane, Wash.; and Lewiston, Idaho; and one serving a more
metropolitan area, Tacoma, Wash. At each of the regional offices, we
interviewed the VR&E officer, assistant VR&E officer (in regional
offices that had an assistant), rehabilitation counselor supervisors
(in regional offices that had supervisors in addition to the VR&E
officer), vocational rehabilitation counselors, employment
coordinators, and local veteran service organization representatives.
We also observed the program orientation provided to new veterans
applying for VR&E services and conducted a file review of cases
randomly selected for the regional offices' local quality assurance
review. We selected our site visit locations to ensure representation
from each of VA's four geographic areas. We also selected our sites to
ensure diversity in the following factors: (1) proximity to major
military installations, (2) number of program participants, (3) change
in the number of participants over time, and (4) overall performance
scores on various management reports.
VR&E Regional Office Survey Data:
To gather information about the program's workload and its current
capacity to help veterans obtain employment, we conducted a survey of
all 57 VR&E regional offices from May 2, 2008, to May 15, 2008.
Specifically, we collected information on each VR&E regional office's
average counselor caseload, number of staff and their skills, extent of
contracting or partnerships with other agencies, changes in the
complexity of staff caseloads since veterans began returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq, changes in VR&E services since the 2004 Task
Force report was issued, and VR&E's preparation to meet future demand.
We developed the content of our survey based on key areas of concern of
the 2004 Task Force and issues raised by agency officials on our site
visits. Officials at VA's Office of Field Operations electronically
distributed the survey on our behalf; however, all survey responses
were sent directly to us. We had a response rate of 100 percent.
[Footnote 33]
Since we surveyed all regional offices, there is no sampling error.
However, difficulties in conducting any survey may introduce
nonsampling error. For example, because the data were self-reported
difficulties in interpreting a particular question or differences in
the way some regional offices are managed can introduce variability
into the survey results. Additionally, because of size differences
among the regional offices, we did not quantify or assign specific
numbers to the scales used in the survey. However, we took steps in
developing the questionnaire to minimize such nonsampling error. For
example, we pretested the content and format of our survey for
understandability. We then refined our survey as appropriate. An
analyst entered the survey responses into a database and the accuracy
of this data entry was verified by an independent analyst. Qualitative
responses to open-ended questions on the survey were categorized by an
analyst to identify common themes. These themes were then independently
reviewed by another analyst for verification purposes.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from Veterans Affairs:
The Secretary Of Veterans Affairs:
Washington:
December 29, 2008:
Mr. Daniel Bertoni:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Bertoni:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, VA Vocational
Rehabilitation And Employment: Better Incentives, Workforce Planning
and Performance Reporting Could Improve Program (GAO-09-34) and
generally agrees with GAO's conclusions and concurs with GAO's
recommendations.
The enclosure specifically addresses each of GAO's recommendations and
provides comments on the draft report. VA appreciates the opportunity
to comment on your draft report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
James B. Peake, M.D.
Enclosure:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA):
Comments on Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report:
VA Vocational Rehabilitation And Employment: Better Incentives,
Workforce Planning and Performance Could Improve Program (GAO-09-34):
GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Program (VR&E) to consider cost-effective
options for better aligning the program's financial incentives with its
employment mission.
Response: Concur. Subsistence allowance and other financial incentives
to veterans pursuing a program of vocational rehabilitation are
legislatively mandated. The current law does not allow payment of
subsistence during a program consisting solely of employment services.
VR&E Service has drafted a legislative proposal for consideration by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Recommendation 2: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct VR&E to
engage in a strategic workforce planning process that collects and uses
relevant data, such as information on the appropriate counselor
caseload and the critical skills and competencies needed by staff.
Response: Concur. VR&E will award a contracted Work Measurement Study
by September 2009 with completion by the end of fiscal 2010. This study
will provide a means to calculate the timeframes necessary to complete
the functions of VR&E jobs and will assist in determining staffing
levels necessary to comprehensively meet veterans' rehabilitation
needs.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has clearly defined critical
skills and competencies needed by Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor
(VRC) positions. Entry-level counselors are required to possess
specific Masters level educational credentials in the field of
rehabilitation to be eligible for hire. In addition, a national in-
service training program is mandatory for all VR&E staff and a new
counselor-training program is provided annually, with over 150 new
counselors trained during fiscal 2008. To ensure training is targeted
to specific skills and competencies, VR&E will collaborate with VBA's
Office of Employment Development and Training in the development of a
skills assessment survey for all critical positions during FY 2009.
Recommendation 3: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs take actions such
as separately reporting both the annual percentage of veterans who
obtain employment and the percentage of those who achieve independent
living, and fully disclosing changes in performance measure
calculations when reporting trend data in key performance and budget
reports.
Response: Concur. Data on employment and independent living (IL) is
currently being collected via the "rehabilitation rate" performance
measure. VBA reports total outcomes in each category in the Performance
and Accountability Report (PAR). VBA will include IL and employment
rehabilitation rates in the comments in the 2010 Budget and the
2009 PAR and will implement new performance measures that separate
rehabilitation rates in FY 2010.
The change in the rehabilitation rate calculation was fully disclosed
in the 2006 budget submission as well as the 2006 PAR during the year
of the change. VR&E will ensure that notes regarding the rehabilitation
rate in future budget and PAR documents clearly indicate the year the
calculation was changed.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Daniel Bertoni (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Melissa Emrey-Arras, Assistant
Director; Amy Anderson, Analyst-in-Charge; Julie DeVault, Nora Boretti,
and Brooke Leary made major contributions to this report; William
Doherty, Peter DelToro, Cynthia Bascetta, Patricia Owens, Brett
Fallavollita, and Randall Williamson provided guidance; Walter Vance
assisted with design study; Cynthia Grant and Wayne Turowski conducted
data analysis; Stan Stenersen, Kate van Gelder, Susan Bernstein,
Julianne Hartman Cutts, and Brittni Milam helped write the report; Mimi
Nguyen provided assistance with graphics; and Doreen Feldman and Roger
Thomas provided legal advice.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Multiple Agencies Provide Assistance to Service-disabled Entrepreneurs,
but Specific Needs Are Difficult to Identify and Coordination Is Weak.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-11R]. Washington, D.C.:
October 15, 2008.
Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic Coordination Could Help
Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-635]. Washington, D.C.: May 20,
2008.
Disabled Veterans' Employment: Additional Planning, Monitoring, and
Data Collection Efforts Would Improve Assistance. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1020]. Washington, D.C.: September
12, 2007.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Modernizing Federal Disability Policy.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-934SP]. Washington,
D.C.: August 3, 2007.
Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be
Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-626]. Washington, D.C.: June 2,
2005.
Vocational Rehabilitation: VA Has Opportunities to Improve Services,
but Faces Significant Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-572T]. Washington, D.C.: April 20,
2005.
Vocational Rehabilitation: More VA and DOD Collaboration Needed to
Expedite Services for Seriously Injured Servicemembers. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-167]. Washington, D.C.: January 14,
2005.
VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program: GAO Comments on
Key Task Force Findings and Recommendations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-853]. Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-3].
Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2002.
Vocational Rehabilitation: VA Continues to Place Few Disabled Veterans
in Jobs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-155].
Washington, D.C.: September 3, 1996.
Vocational Rehabilitation: Better VA Management Needed to Help Disabled
Veterans Find Jobs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-92-100]. Washington, D.C.:
September 4, 1992.
VA Can Provide More Employment Assistance to Veterans Who Complete Its
Vocational Rehabilitation Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-84-39]. Washington, D.C.: May 23,
1984.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, VA Can Provide More Employment Assistance to Veterans Who
Complete Its Vocational Rehabilitation Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-84-39] (Washington, D.C.: May 23,
1984); Vocational Rehabilitation: Better VA Management Needed to Help
Disabled Veterans Find Jobs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-92-100] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4,
1992); and Vocational Rehabilitation: VA Continues to Place Few
Disabled Veterans in Jobs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-155] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
3, 1996).
[2] Pub. L. No. 96-466.
[3] VA, Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal year 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2007). These costs
include both benefit and administrative expenditures.
[4] Some VA regional offices also have one or more VR&E satellite
offices located in their region. Staff in these satellite offices
report to their respective regional office.
[5] Eligible veterans also have the option of using the GI Bill for
educational benefits. Expanded GI Bill benefits for certain veterans
were signed into law in June 2008 and are expected to be available in
August 2009. See Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-
252, §5003, 122 Stat. 2358, 38 U.S.C. §3311.
[6] An employment handicap is an impairment of the veteran's ability to
prepare for, obtain, or retain employment consistent with his or her
abilities, aptitudes, and interests.
[7] Veterans may be considered to have a serious employment handicap
for a number of reasons such as the number and severity of disabling
conditions; long periods of unemployment or unstable work history;
abuse of alcohol or other substances; or a criminal record.
[8] Memorandum ratings are intended to speed up the entitlement process
and, instead of determining the specific disability rating, they
indicate whether a servicemember or veteran has a service-connected
disability that is either (1) less than 20 percent or (2) equal to or
greater than 20 percent.
[9] The eligibility period begins on the latter of two dates: (1) the
date of separation from active military duty or (2) the date the
veteran was first notified of a service-connected disability rating.
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-155].
[11] Final Report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and
Veterans Transition Assistance (Arlington, Va.: Jan. 15, 1999).
[12] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: January
2003).
[13] VA's Secretary Principi established the Task Force to
independently assess VA's VR&E program. For the report, see VA
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Task Force, Report to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: The Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment Program for the 21st Century Veteran (Washington, D.C.:
March 2004).
[14] GAO, VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program: GAO
Comments on Key Task Force Findings and Recommendations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-853] (Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2004).
[15] For more information on VR&E's self-employment track, see GAO,
Multiple Agencies Provide Assistance to Service-Disabled Veterans or
Entrepreneurs, but Specific Needs Are Difficult to Identify and
Coordination Is Weak, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-11R] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2008).
[16] Veterans receiving employment services only may be enrolled in the
Re-employment, Rapid access to employment, or Self employment tracks.
The criteria for subsistence allowance payments can be found in 38
C.F.R. §21.260.
[17] GAO, Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs
to Be Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-626] (Washington, D.C.: June 2,
2005).
[18] Economic Systems Inc., A Study of Compensation Payments for
Service-Connected Disabilities, a special report prepared at the
request of the Department of Veterans Affairs, September 2008.
[19] DOD and VA initiated this effort partially in response to a GAO
recommendation. See GAO, Vocational Rehabilitation: More VA and DOD
Collaboration Needed to Expedite Services for Seriously Injured
Servicemembers, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-167]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).
[20] GAO, Disabled Veterans' Employment: Additional Planning,
Monitoring, and Data Collection Efforts Would Improve Assistance,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1020] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 12, 2007).
[21] VR&E and Labor initiated this effort in response to a GAO
recommendation. See [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1020].
[22] Our prior work has noted the need for more comprehensive,
interagency coordination to modernize the various federal disability
programs. See GAO, Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic
Coordination Could Help Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-635] (Washington, D.C.:
May 20, 2008); and Highlights of a GAO Forum: Modernizing Federal
Disability Policy, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-934SP] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 3,
2007).
[23] McGuire-Kuletz, M., Shivers, S., & Anderson, P. (Eds.), When
Johnny (or Jeannie) Comes Marching Home... and Back to Work: Linking
Veterans Affairs and State Vocational Rehabilitation Services for
Service Men and Women (forthcoming). As of January 21, 2009, this
report had not been published.
[24] Several regional offices are co-managed; thus, in some cases one
VR&E officer responded for more than one regional office. Therefore, we
received 50 surveys that represented the views of all 57 VR&E regional
offices.
[25] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003); and A
Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2002).
[26] The 121 percent increase is from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal
year 2007.
[27] VA, Office of Inspector General, Audit of Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Program Operations (Washington, D.C.:
Dec. 17, 2007).
[28] In addition, the OIG found that VA did not fully describe the
methods used to calculate the overall rehabilitation rate in its
performance and accountability reports. Specifically, in its fiscal
year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, VA did not disclose
that it excluded from the calculation those veterans who had left the
program before writing a rehabilitation plan, although their numbers
represented a majority of the veterans served by the program. When the
OIG calculated the rehabilitation rate for all veterans served by the
program, including those who had left the program before writing a
rehabilitation plan, it obtained a lower rate than VA reported. The OIG
recommended that VA fully explain the methodology used for its
rehabilitation rate. In response, VA reported in its fiscal year 2007
Performance and Accountability Report that the rate calculation
involves only those veterans who have written a rehabilitation plan.
[29] Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, federal
agencies are required to develop performance measures and annually
report performance trend data for the current year and 3 prior years.
For the recent annual VA performance and accountability reports that
provide rehabilitation trend data without an indication of the rate
calculation change, see Department of Veterans Affairs 2007 Performance
and Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2007) pp. 27,
222, and 241 and Department of Veterans Affairs 2008 Performance and
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2008) pp. 29, 126,
128, and 243. For VA's 2008 and 2009 budget submissions to Congress,
which were issued subsequent to the fiscal year 2006 change to the
rehabilitation rate, see Department of Veterans Affairs Fiscal Year
2008 Budget Request, vol. II. National Cemetery Administration, Benefit
Programs, and Departmental Administration (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 5,
2007) p. 6E-7 and Department of Veterans Affairs Fiscal Year 2009
Budget Request, vol. III. Benefits and Burial Programs and Departmental
Administration (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2008) p. 4E-7.
[30] Our work on the Government Performance and Results Act found that
when agencies change performance goals or measures during a fiscal
year, they could enhance the usefulness of their performance reports by
discussing the nature, extent, and significance of those changes in
their reports. See GAO, Government Performance and Results Act
Performance Reports, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-66R] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14,
1996).
[31] VR&E considers veterans who have successfully completed any of
VR&E's five tracks as rehabilitated. Specifically, a veteran is
considered to have achieved an employment goal after staying employed
for 60 days in a suitable job. A veteran seeking independent living is
considered rehabilitated after attaining his or her independent living
goals and achieving maximum independence in daily living.
[32] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003); and A Model of Strategic Human
Capital Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2002).
[33] VA officials notified us that several regional office locations
are co-managed, as a result, in some cases one VR&E officer responded
for more than one regional office. Therefore, we received 50 surveys
that represented the views of all 57 VR&E regional offices.
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
