Testimony Before the Subcommittee on 

Economic Opportunity, Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs, House of 

Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 12, 2005 VETERANS’ 

EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING SERVICE 

Preliminary Observations 

on Changes to Veterans’ 

Employment Programs 

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-05-662T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-662T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-662T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Economic 

Opportunity, Committee on Veterans' 

Affairs, House of Representatives 

May 12 2005

VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING SERVICE 

Preliminary Observations on Changes to 

Veterans’ Employment Programs 

VETS has established separate roles for DVOP and LVER staff and has 

provided policy guidance and training to states explaining these changes. 

Under JVA, states now determine how many DVOP and LVER staff they hire, 

where to place them within the local workforce areas, and 23 states are 

planning to use some part-time DVOP staff. There are indications that 

integrating DVOP and LVER staff into the local workforce offices remains 

challenging. While VETS has issued guidance on an incentive program to 

encourage improved performance, state implementation of the program has 

varied, and 11 states do not plan to participate. 

VETS has implemented employment measures for DVOP and LVER staff, but 

a minimum standard that all states must meet for veterans entering 

employment will not be available before 2007. VETS reported meeting 

Labor’s goal of achieving a 58-percent employment rate for all veteran job 

seekers during program year 2003, but fell somewhat short of reaching a 60-

percent employment goal for disabled veterans. Assessing how well DVOP 

and LVER programs are serving veterans may continue to be difficult due to 

ongoing concerns about data reliability. 

VETS implemented a monitoring system in program year 2004 that relies 

primarily on state self-assessments of performance in conjunction with onsite reviews. It is unclear, however, how VETS staff at the state, regional, 

and national levels will use this information consistently to guide or improve 

the DVOP and LVER programs. VETS is working with other Labor agencies 

to coordinate monitoring and enforcement efforts. 

 

Summary of Performance Outcomes for the DVOP and LVER Programs, Program Year 2003 

All veterans and eligible 

persons Disabled veterans 

Outcome measure Actual Goal Actual Goal 

Entered employment rate 58 percent 58 percent 53 percent 60 percent 

Rate of retention in 

employment at 6 months 79 percent 72 percent 77 percent 65 percent 

Source: Fiscal year 2004 Performance Budget for VETS and VETS 200 report. 

The Department of Labor’s 

Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service (VETS) 

administers two programs designed 

to assist the roughly 700,000 

veterans who are unemployed in 

any given month. These two 

programs, the Disabled Veterans’ 

Outreach Program (DVOP) and the 

Local Veterans’ Employment 

Representative (LVER) program, 

fund employment, training, and job 

placement services to veterans. In 

2002, Congress passed the Jobs for 

Veterans Act (JVA), which 

redefined the roles of DVOP and 

LVER staff and required that VETS 

establish a new performance 

accountability system. 

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

ongoing work in this area and 

focuses on three aspects: (1) the 

separation of DVOP’s and LVER’s 

roles and responsibilities; (2) VETS’ 

performance accountability system 

for DVOP and LVER staff; and (3) 

VETS’ system for monitoring DVOP 

and LVER performance.
Page 1 GAO-05-662T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to talk about our preliminary observations 

on the status of implementation of some key provisions of the Jobs for 

Veterans Act (JVA).1

 This legislation was passed in 2002 to improve 

various aspects of employment, training, and placement services provided 

to veterans. The need for such services is growing, given that roughly 

700,000 veterans are unemployed in any given month and the number of 

service members leaving active duty—estimated by the Department of 

Labor (Labor) at 200,000 yearly—is anticipated to rise with more troops 

returning to civilian life. Viewing employment services for veterans as a 

national responsibility, Congress established the Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service (VETS) within Labor to carry out national policy that 

veterans receive priority in employment and training opportunities. 

Among the programs that VETS administers as part of its responsibilities 

to help veterans find employment are the Disabled Veterans’ Outreach 

Program (DVOP) and the Local Veterans’ Employment Representative 

(LVER) program. Nationwide, there are more than 2,000 DVOP and LVER 

staff. The DVOP staff are responsible for providing outreach to veterans 

needing VETS employment services and in offering them a variety of 

intensive services, such as career guidance and provision of job 

development contacts. The DVOP staff are to give priority of service to 

veterans who are disabled. The LVER staff are focused on establishing 

relationships with area employers and on facilitating employment, 

training, and placement services for veterans. The DVOP and LVER staff 

are also mandatory partners in the one-stop center system created in 1998 

by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) where services provided by 

numerous employment and training programs are made available through 

a single network. 

My testimony today addresses the current implementation status of three 

aspects of the DVOP and LVER programs that have changed as a result of 

JVA: (1) The separation of DVOP’s and LVER’s roles and responsibilities; 

(2) VETS performance accountability system for DVOP and LVER staff; 

and (3) VETS system for monitoring DVOP and LVER performance. My 

testimony is based on our past reports and ongoing work for this 

subcommittee and other congressional committees. We will report on our 

ongoing work at the end of the year, as mandated. 

 1

Pub. L. No. 107-288 (2002). 
Page 2 GAO-05-662T 

We recently held discussions with national and regional VETS officials and 

visited two judgmentally selected states, Washington and Colorado. In 

Colorado, we interviewed state VETS officials, and visited the National 

Veterans’ Training Institute (NVTI) where we interviewed NVTI officials as 

well as DVOP and LVER staff from 24 states who were attending training 

classes. We also met with officials from various veterans’ service 

organizations and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. 

We started this work in January 2005, and it is ongoing. Our work is being 

conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In summary, VETS has established newly defined roles for DVOP and 

LVER staff and has provided this information by issuing policy guidance 

letters and conducting ongoing training at NVTI. States have been using 

the flexibility that these programs now provide, such as being able to 

determine how many DVOP and LVER staff are sufficient to meet their 

needs, where to place them within the local workforce area, and how to 

more effectively use them to serve local veteran job seekers. Almost half 

of the states plan to use JVA’s authority to assign DVOP staff on a parttime basis. However, integrating DVOP and LVER staff into one-stop 

centers remains a long-standing challenge. While VETS has issued 

guidance on the new incentive program to recognize exemplary service 

delivery by DVOPs and LVER staff, 11 states do not plan to participate due 

to reasons such as state laws or other policies that prevent individuals 

from receiving awards. 

 

VETS has implemented employment measures for DVOP and LVER staff. 

However, VETS estimated that it will be at least until 2007 before it has the 

trend data needed to establish the minimum standard that all states must 

meet for the rate at which veterans enter employment. Using goals 

negotiated with the states in the interim, VETS reported that DVOP and 

LVER programs, as a whole, met Labor’s goal of achieving a 58-percent 

employment rate for all veteran job seekers during program year 2003, 

although the programs fell somewhat short in reaching a 60-percent 

employment goal for disabled veterans. However, assessing how well 

DVOP and LVER programs are serving veterans may continue to be 

difficult due to VETS’ ongoing concerns about the reliability of servicerelated data. 

VETS has implemented changes to its system for monitoring state 

compliance with the DVOP and LVER programs, and work continues to 

determine how best to use the monitoring information to improve program 

performance. VETS staff completed their first round of reviewing state 

plans and self-assessments of performance in program year 2004. In 
Page 3 GAO-05-662T 

addition, VETS staff performed their first round of on-site reviews. It is 

unclear, however, how VETS staff at the state, regional, and national levels 

will use this information to consistently guide or improve the DVOP and 

LVER programs. VETS and the Employment and Training Administration 

(ETA) are working together to coordinate monitoring and enforcement 

efforts. 

VETS administers national programs to (1) ensure that veterans receive 

priority in employment and training opportunities from the employment 

service; (2) assist veterans, reservists, and National Guard members in 

securing employment; and (3) protect veterans’ employment rights and 

benefits. VETS carries out its responsibilities through a nationwide 

network that includes representation in each of Labor’s 10 regions and 

staff in each state. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for VETS 

administers the agency’s activities through regional administrators and a 

VETS director in each state. The state VETS directors are the link 

between VETS and the states’ employment service system, to whom the 

DVOP and LVER staff--as state employees--directly report, and which is 

overseen by Labor’s ETA. In fiscal year 2005, VETS requested $220.6 

million for all its programs, including $162.4 million for the DVOP and 

LVER programs. States plan to use this funding to support more than 

2,100 DVOP and LVER positions. 

In September 2001, we identified some key areas in which VETS could 

better serve its clients by providing more flexibility and accountability in 

its programs.2

 With its passage in November 2002, JVA amended the 

legislation that governs the DVOP and LVER programs by addressing many 

of the concerns we raised in our prior work. For example, JVA clarified 

the roles of DVOP and LVER staff, and gave states greater flexibility in 

determining how the staff are used. Under VETS guidance, the DVOP 

staff’s duties now focus on providing intensive services--with priority given 

to disabled veterans--including assessing the veterans’ special needs and 

skills, developing a plan of action, and coordinating any needed supportive 

services, such as training and job referrals. The DVOP staff also provide 

outreach activities to locate candidates who could benefit from intensive 

services, such as homeless veterans. As stated in VETS guidance, the 

LVER staff’s duties now include developing regular contact with 

employers to promote employment and training for veterans, developing 

relationships with community leaders to further promote veterans’ 

 2

GAO, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and Accountability 

Needed to Improve Service to Veterans, GAO-01-928 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2001). 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-662T 

employment, and promoting and monitoring the participation of veterans 

in federally funded programs. 

The JVA legislation required states to develop plans that include details of 

the specific duties required of the DVOP and LVER positions and the 

strategy for their integration into the one-stop system. The legislation also 

required the establishment of a comprehensive performance 

accountability system to measure performance of the DVOP and LVER 

staff, using performance measures consistent with those of WIA.3

 In 

addition, JVA established an incentive program to recognize eligible 

employees for excellence in providing veterans services and to encourage 

the improvement of services, with 1 percent of each state’s annual grant 

allocation to be designated for incentive funding. In addition, JVA 

required VETS to establish a minimum standard for the rate at which 

veterans enter employment, a standard which all states are required to 

meet. The JVA legislation further required annual performance reviews of 

veterans’ services, which VETS uses to monitor the DVOP and LVER 

programs to ensure proper accountability. 

VETS has taken action to implement the changes to the DVOP and LVER 

programs. VETS has issued policy guidance and conducted training on the 

DVOP and LVER staff’s new roles and responsibilities. In addition, nearly 

half the states are taking advantage of JVA’s flexibility to employ part-time 

DVOP staff. Although VETS has issued guidance on the performance 

incentive program to recognize exemplary staff as required by JVA, states 

have implemented this program differently, and 11 states do not plan to 

implement the incentive program because sometimes it conflicts with the 

state’s policy if awards are given to individuals. In addition, integrating 

DVOP and LVER staff into one-stop centers continues to be challenging. 

 3

The WIA performance measures include entered employment, retention at 6 months, and 

customer satisfaction. 

VETS Has 

Implemented Changes 

to DVOP and LVER 

Roles and 

Responsibilities, but 

One-Stop Integration 

Issues Remain 
Page 5 GAO-05-662T 

Through its policy guidance letters, VETS has clarified the DVOP and 

LVER staff’s new functions, along with new staffing and reporting 

requirements, including the use of part-time positions for DVOPs. In 

addition, shortly after JVA was enacted, NVTI held a series of 

implementation seminars covering DVOP and LVER staff’s new roles and 

responsibilities that were attended by representatives from all states. 

NVTI also conducts case management training aimed at DVOP staff. At 

the end of its first training year in October 2004 following passage of JVA, 

NVTI reported training 282 DVOPs and estimated that an additional 144 

would be trained each year in the future. Similarly, NVTI conducts 

employer outreach training focused on LVERs. Because this class is new, 

NVTI estimates that it will train 264 LVERs by October 2005, and projects 

that an additional 240 LVERs would be trained each year. 

One of the key changes in the new law gives states the flexibility to 

establish part-time DVOP and LVER positions, though this was already 

permitted to some extent for LVERs. According to their fiscal year 2005 

state plans, 23 states planned to use the new flexibility under JVA to 

employ both full- and part-time DVOPs, while 34 states planned to use the 

long-standing authority to employ both full- and part-time LVERs. As 

shown in table 1, part-time DVOP positions would comprise about 18 

percent of the total DVOP staff and about 44 percent of the total LVER 

staff. 

Table 1: Full-Time and Part-Time DVOP and LVER Positions, Fiscal Year 2005 

Type of position Total DVOP staff (percentage) 

Total LVER staff 

(percentage)

Full-time 1,139 (82 percent) 871 (56 percent)

Half-time 241 (18 percent) 675 (44 percent)

Total 1,380 (100 percent) 1,522 (100 percent)

Source: GAO analysis of state plans. 

Note: Figures include the District of Columbia and exclude Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

Some states plan to use part-time DVOPs and LVERs extensively. For 

example, two states, Maine and Washington, planned to use part-time 

LVERs exclusively. In addition, South Dakota plans on having 87 percent 

of its DVOPs be part-time, and Vermont plans to have 91 percent of LVERs 

be part-time. By contrast, in New Jersey, only 5 percent of DVOPs are to 

be part-time and, in Indiana, 6 percent of LVERs are to be part-time. 

VETS has implemented JVA’s requirement to establish a performance 

incentive awards program by issuing policy guidance that lays out criteria 

VETS Has Provided 

Guidance and Training to 

Distinguish DVOP from 

LVER Staff Duties and 

Many States Plan to Use 

Part-Time DVOP Staff 

Not All States Plan to Use 

Incentive Awards 
Page 6 GAO-05-662T 

and monetary as well as nonmonetary awards for states to consider in 

developing an awards program. According to fiscal year 2005 state plans, 

11 states did not plan to use the incentive program due to reasons such as 

conflicts with state law or other policies if the awards are given to 

individuals. The remaining 40 states planned to implement the incentive 

program in various ways. For example, in one state, two DVOPs were 

awarded a one-time maximum award of $1,000. In another state, however, 

top performing DVOP and LVER staff were given a one-time cash award 

for as little as $16. Regardless of their current approach to implementing 

incentives, some VETS officials said they would like to see award 

eligibility criteria expanded beyond individuals to include entire units. 

Labor officials acknowledge that integration of DVOP and LVER staff into 

the one-stop centers has been a persistent challenge. The extent that 

implementing changes under JVA will assist in breaking down the barriers 

and entrenched cultures that have precluded integration in the one-stop 

centers will likely take years. According to the DVOP and LVER staff we 

interviewed, integration still varied widely among local areas, depending 

on the level of support provided by the one-stop manager for the DVOP 

and LVER programs. For example, one DVOP staff told us that the 

veterans program is highly integrated with the WIA program in her local 

one-stop, with both sharing case management responsibilities. In addition, 

she participates in regular meetings with the one-stop partners and 

attributed this cohesion to the commitment by her one-stop manager to 

work cooperatively with all the partners. In contrast, a DVOP from 

another state told us that he was assigned to tasks that prevented him 

from serving as many veterans as he would have liked. 

In cases where there was poor integration, several reasons were cited by 

DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed from various states. One reason 

was that other one-stop staff were not educated or trained on serving 

veterans. An NVTI official told us that the institute has provided training 

to states that have requested it, but was concerned that the states that 

were struggling with providing veterans’ services were the very ones that 

did not request training. Other reasons included the perception among 

DVOP and LVER staff we interviewed that there is little coordination 

between VETS and ETA to ensure integration among all partner programs, 

Challenges Continue with 

Integrating DVOP and 

LVER Staff into One-Stop 

Centers 
Page 7 GAO-05-662T 

adopt uniform definitions of eligible veterans, and consistently give 

veterans priority of service regardless of program.4

VETS has implemented some JVA changes to the accountability system 

related to the measures used for assessing DVOP and LVER performance, 

but it estimates that it will be at least 2007 before it can implement a 

minimum standard for veterans entering employment that all states will be 

expected to meet. Until the standard becomes available, VETS has used 

historically based outcomes in negotiating performance goals with states. 

In addition, Labor has established an entered-employment goal of 58 

percent for veterans served through the DVOP and LVER programs. While 

VETS reported that the DVOP and LVER programs met Labor’s program 

year 2003 goals for some measures, concerns about data reliability remain, 

preventing an accurate assessment of how well DVOP and LVER staff are 

performing. 

The performance measurement system for the DVOP and LVER programs 

has been in transition over the last several years. Prior to JVA, 

performance measures placed more emphasis on process-oriented 

measures—measures that simply tracked services provided to veterans, 

not on the employment outcomes veterans achieved. In addition, states 

used different data sources to report employment-related outcomes, 

resulting in performance that was not comparable across states. 

According to VETS officials, VETS adopted performance measures, 

beginning July 1, 2003, that are consistent with those of WIA, but has not 

yet specified when it will implement a system for weighting the measures 

to provide special consideration for such groups as disabled veterans, in 

accordance with JVA’s requirements. Another fundamental change was 

the use of Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records to identify veterans 

who get jobs rather than the use of time-consuming follow-up procedures. 

The current performance standards for the DVOP and LVER programs 

apply to various veterans populations, including disabled veterans. Three 

measures are based on WIA: (1) veterans that entered employment; (2) 

retention in employment at 6 months; and (3) job seeker satisfaction. In 

addition, VETS tracks entered employment following receipt of staff-

 4

ETA has issued guidance on implementing JVA’s requirement to provide priority of service 

to veterans eligible veterans as it relates to 20 Labor-funded programs that are affected by 

the requirement. See U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance 

Letter No. 5-03, (Washington, D.C.: 2003). ETA officials told us that they also plan to raise 

awareness of priority of service through such efforts as promotion campaigns at one-stop 

centers. 

New Performance 

System Implemented 

for DVOPs and 

LVERs, but Too Early 

to Link Changes to 

Veterans’ 

Employment 

Outcomes 

Performance Measures 

Implemented, but More 

Time Needed to Establish 

Minimum Standard 
Page 8 GAO-05-662T 

assisted services and entered employment following receipt of case 

management.5

 

VETS officials told us, however, that the measures will change again on 

July 1, 2005, when VETS will adopt the Office of Management and Budget’s 

new common measures. 6 VETS will retain several existing measures that 

track employment following services provided by DVOP and LVER staff. 

While the new common measures afford some advantages over existing 

measures, the frequent shifts in focus have made it difficult to collect 

comparable data that can be used to establish a pattern of performance for 

the DVOP and LVER programs and compare outcomes across different 

time periods. As such, VETS anticipates that it will take at least until 2007 

to collect the necessary trend data to establish the minimum standard for 

the entered-employment rate that all states will be expected to meet. In 

the interim, states are required to meet performance goals that they 

negotiate annually with VETS based on historic outcome levels. For 

example, according to VETS, states’ program year 2004 negotiated goals 

for entered employment ranged from 46 percent to 67 percent for veterans, 

and from 41 percent to 65 percent for disabled veterans. 

Nationwide, VETS reported that the DVOP and LVER programs met 

Labor’s goals for the entered employment rate (58 percent) for all eligible 

veterans in program year 2003, while they fell short of their 60-percent 

target entered employment rate for disabled veterans (see table 2). 

Similarly, VETS reported that the programs exceeded goals for the rate at 

which veterans retained employment 6 months later. 

 5

This measure applies only to the DVOP program. 

6

The Office of Management and Budget established a set of common measures to be 

applied to all federal employment and training programs administered by the departments 

of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Interior, and Housing 

and Urban Development. This set of measures will allow Labor to sum outcomes across all 

its programs and provide a more uniform picture of outcomes achieved. Three common 

measures apply to programs serving adults: (1) entered employment; (2) employment 

retention; and (3) earnings increase. Although program efficiency was one of the measures 

in earlier ETA guidance, the policy has been revised and states will no longer be required to 

report on this measure. Instead, ETA will use existing program management data to report 

program efficiency at a national level. 

VETS Reports Meeting 

Goals, but Data Reliability 

Concerns Remain 
Page 9 GAO-05-662T 

Table 2: Summary of Performance Outcomes for DVOP and LVER Programs, 

Program Year 2003 

All veterans and eligible 

persons Disabled veterans 

Outcome measure Actual Goal Actual Goal

Entered employment 

rate 58 percent 58 percent 53 percent 60 percent

Rate of retention in 

employment at 6 

months 79 percent 72 percent 77 percent 65 percent

Source: Fiscal year 2004 Performance Budget for VETS and VETS 200 report. 

Even after the new measures will be adopted, VETS officials remain 

concerned about the reliability of data used to assess performance. VETS 

officials attribute their concerns about service-related data reliability to 

DVOP and LVER staff not understanding the new definitions of the 

performance measures, lacking training on entering data into an 

automated system, inconsistent registration policies, or simply inputting 

erroneous data. In addition, VETS officials told us that some states have 

known data reliability issues with their management information systems. 

While Labor has established data validation procedures, the reliability of 

performance data is an issue that is not fully addressed by Labor’s current 

validation procedures. For example, all states must certify that their data 

are correct using validation software that cross-checks the totals they 

report to VETS. However, validation does not extend to the case file level 

to ensure that DVOP and LVER staff accurately collect and report data at 

the point of service delivery. In comparing the reliability of data on 

services to those on employment outcomes, VETS officials believe that 

outcome data are more reliable because they are based on Unemployment 

Insurance (UI) wage records. However, as we have noted in past work, 

while UI wage records are reliable, they suffer from significant time lags, 

resulting in at least an approximately 11⁄2- year wait to obtain information 

on outcomes.7

 7

GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to 

Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2004). 
Page 10 GAO-05-662T 

In response to JVA’s requirement to monitor the DVOP and LVER 

programs, VETS has shifted greater responsibility for monitoring program 

performance to the state level, and VETS’ monitoring role continues to 

evolve from enforcer to partner in achieving state goals. VETS staff 

completed their first review of annual state self-assessments in program 

year 2004 and have completed their first round of site visits to a random 

sample of local offices. However, the extent that this new approach to 

monitoring DVOP and LVER performance strengthens program 

accountability may require several years of state and VETS experience 

collecting, reporting, and using information to improve services to 

veterans. 

Beginning in program year 2004, VETS began reviewing all the state plans 

for compliance with program requirements and, for any deficiencies noted 

during the review, required states to correct the relevant section of the 

plan. In addition, VETS requires states to submit annual self-assessments 

to identify best practices, ensure the approved state plan is being 

effectively implemented, determine the state’s progress toward meeting its 

performance goals, and identify areas for technical assistance and training. 

Besides conducting reviews of the state plans and self-assessments, VETS 

also conducts annual on-site monitoring reviews of 20 percent of local 

offices within each state, and all local offices must be visited at least once 

in 5 years. While we do not know how many offices have DVOP or LVER 

staff, there are an estimated 1,900 comprehensive one-stop centers and 

about 1,600 affiliate one-stop centers around the nation. The on-site 

reviews include interviewing personnel who are involved in providing 

services to veterans, observing the flow of customers in the lobby, and 

reviewing local guidance and plans. 

Now that VETS has completed its first year under the new performance 

accountability system, it is unclear how it will use its monitoring results to 

improve DVOP and LVER program performance. At the national level, 

VETS has developed a system to track corrective actions needed in states’ 

plans, but has not yet developed a strategy to best meld performance 

information from its other monitoring efforts to improve program 

performance at the local, state, and regional levels. For example, VETS 

officials in two states we visited told us that they use the site visit results 

to identify local offices needing targeted technical assistance. However, 

one state VETS official told us that because local offices varied 

considerably in their performance, he was uncertain whether the 20-

percent sample used for site visits would accurately capture areas most in 

need of technical assistance. While information on DVOP and LVER 

performance is also available through local office reporting, VETS officials 

Monitoring Systems 

Evolving to 

Strengthen Program 

Accountability 

First Round of Reviews 

Completed 

VETS Still Working to 

Determine How Best to 

Use Monitoring 

Information 
Page 11 GAO-05-662T 

have not provided a consistent methodology to incorporate and analyze 

relative performance among the local offices, states, and regional offices. 

VETS and ETA continue to work on issues related to sharing the results of 

monitoring efforts, coordinating corrective actions, and taking a joint 

approach to enforcement. 

 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may 

have. Our remaining work will examine these and other issues in greater 

depth to meet our mandated reporting date at the end of the year. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512- 7215. Key contributors to this testimony were Lacinda Ayers, 

Jeremy Cox, Meeta Engle, Emily Pickrell, and Stanley Stenersen. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 12 GAO-05-662T 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and 

Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans. GAO-01-928. 

Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance 

Measurement System Improved, But Further Changes Needed. 

GAO-01-580. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Strategic and 

Performance Plans Lack Vision and Clarity. GAO/T-HEHS-99-177. 

Washington, D.C.: July 29, 1999. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Assessment of the Fiscal 

Year 1999 Performance Plan. GAO/HEHS-98-240R. Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 1998. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training: Services Provided by Labor 

Department Programs. GAO/HEHS-98-7. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 

1997. 

Related GAO Products 

(130481) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER